linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at net/unix/garbage.c:149!"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57EA7F3B.3030801@kyup.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:16:27 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at net/unix/garbage.c:149!"

[Added Dave Miller to see what's the status of this patch]

On 08/30/2016 12:18 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> crash> list -H gc_inflight_list unix_sock.link -s unix_sock.inflight |
>> grep counter | cut -d= -f2 | awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}'
>> 130
>> crash> p unix_tot_inflight
>> unix_tot_inflight = $2 = 135
>>
>> We've lost track of a total of five inflight sockets, so it's not a
>> one-off thing.  Really weird...  Now off to sleep, maybe I'll dream of
>> the solution.
> 
> Okay, found one bug: gc assumes that in-flight sockets that don't have
> an external ref can't gain one while unix_gc_lock is held.  That is
> true because unix_notinflight() will be called before detaching fds,
> which takes unix_gc_lock.  Only MSG_PEEK was somehow overlooked.  That
> one also clones the fds, also keeping them in the skb.  But through
> MSG_PEEK an external reference can definitely be gained without ever
> touching unix_gc_lock.
> 
> Not sure whether the reported bug can be explained by this.  Can you
> confirm the MSG_PEEK was used in the setup?
> 
> Does someone want to write a stress test for SCM_RIGHTS + MSG_PEEK?
> 
> Anyway, attaching a fix that works by acquiring unix_gc_lock in case
> of MSG_PEEK also.  It is trivially correct, but I haven't tested it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Miklos
> 


Dave,

What's the status of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/664062/ , is
this going to be picked up ?

Regards,
Nikolay