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: <20160928090437.116875474@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:05:04 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...eradapt.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 34/73] af_unix: split u->readlock into two: iolock and bindlock

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

commit 6e1ce3c3451291142a57c4f3f6f999a29fb5b3bc upstream.

Right now we use the 'readlock' both for protecting some of the af_unix
IO path and for making the bind be single-threaded.

The two are independent, but using the same lock makes for a nasty
deadlock due to ordering with regards to filesystem locking.  The bind
locking would want to nest outside the VSF pathname locking, but the IO
locking wants to nest inside some of those same locks.

We tried to fix this earlier with commit c845acb324aa ("af_unix: Fix
splice-bind deadlock") which moved the readlock inside the vfs locks,
but that caused problems with overlayfs that will then call back into
filesystem routines that take the lock in the wrong order anyway.

Splitting the locks means that we can go back to having the bind lock be
the outermost lock, and we don't have any deadlocks with lock ordering.

Acked-by: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...eradapt.com>
Acked-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 include/net/af_unix.h |    2 +-
 net/unix/af_unix.c    |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

--- a/include/net/af_unix.h
+++ b/include/net/af_unix.h
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ struct unix_sock {
 	struct sock		sk;
 	struct unix_address     *addr;
 	struct path		path;
-	struct mutex		readlock;
+	struct mutex		iolock, bindlock;
 	struct sock		*peer;
 	struct list_head	link;
 	atomic_long_t		inflight;
--- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
+++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
@@ -661,11 +661,11 @@ static int unix_set_peek_off(struct sock
 {
 	struct unix_sock *u = unix_sk(sk);
 
-	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock))
+	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->iolock))
 		return -EINTR;
 
 	sk->sk_peek_off = val;
-	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -778,7 +778,8 @@ static struct sock *unix_create1(struct
 	spin_lock_init(&u->lock);
 	atomic_long_set(&u->inflight, 0);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&u->link);
-	mutex_init(&u->readlock); /* single task reading lock */
+	mutex_init(&u->iolock); /* single task reading lock */
+	mutex_init(&u->bindlock); /* single task binding lock */
 	init_waitqueue_head(&u->peer_wait);
 	init_waitqueue_func_entry(&u->peer_wake, unix_dgram_peer_wake_relay);
 	unix_insert_socket(unix_sockets_unbound(sk), sk);
@@ -847,7 +848,7 @@ static int unix_autobind(struct socket *
 	int err;
 	unsigned int retries = 0;
 
-	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
+	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->bindlock);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
@@ -894,7 +895,7 @@ retry:
 	spin_unlock(&unix_table_lock);
 	err = 0;
 
-out:	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+out:	mutex_unlock(&u->bindlock);
 	return err;
 }
 
@@ -1008,7 +1009,7 @@ static int unix_bind(struct socket *sock
 		goto out;
 	addr_len = err;
 
-	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
+	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->bindlock);
 	if (err)
 		goto out;
 
@@ -1062,7 +1063,7 @@ static int unix_bind(struct socket *sock
 out_unlock:
 	spin_unlock(&unix_table_lock);
 out_up:
-	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&u->bindlock);
 out:
 	return err;
 }
@@ -1957,17 +1958,17 @@ static ssize_t unix_stream_sendpage(stru
 	if (false) {
 alloc_skb:
 		unix_state_unlock(other);
-		mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->readlock);
+		mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->iolock);
 		newskb = sock_alloc_send_pskb(sk, 0, 0, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT,
 					      &err, 0);
 		if (!newskb)
 			goto err;
 	}
 
-	/* we must acquire readlock as we modify already present
+	/* we must acquire iolock as we modify already present
 	 * skbs in the sk_receive_queue and mess with skb->len
 	 */
-	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&unix_sk(other)->readlock);
+	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&unix_sk(other)->iolock);
 	if (err) {
 		err = flags & MSG_DONTWAIT ? -EAGAIN : -ERESTARTSYS;
 		goto err;
@@ -2034,7 +2035,7 @@ alloc_skb:
 	}
 
 	unix_state_unlock(other);
-	mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->iolock);
 
 	other->sk_data_ready(other);
 	scm_destroy(&scm);
@@ -2043,7 +2044,7 @@ alloc_skb:
 err_state_unlock:
 	unix_state_unlock(other);
 err_unlock:
-	mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&unix_sk(other)->iolock);
 err:
 	kfree_skb(newskb);
 	if (send_sigpipe && !(flags & MSG_NOSIGNAL))
@@ -2108,7 +2109,7 @@ static int unix_dgram_recvmsg(struct soc
 	if (flags&MSG_OOB)
 		goto out;
 
-	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
+	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->iolock);
 	if (unlikely(err)) {
 		/* recvmsg() in non blocking mode is supposed to return -EAGAIN
 		 * sk_rcvtimeo is not honored by mutex_lock_interruptible()
@@ -2184,7 +2185,7 @@ static int unix_dgram_recvmsg(struct soc
 out_free:
 	skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
 out_unlock:
-	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
 out:
 	return err;
 }
@@ -2279,7 +2280,7 @@ static int unix_stream_read_generic(stru
 	/* Lock the socket to prevent queue disordering
 	 * while sleeps in memcpy_tomsg
 	 */
-	mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_lock(&u->iolock);
 
 	if (flags & MSG_PEEK)
 		skip = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
@@ -2320,7 +2321,7 @@ again:
 				break;
 			}
 
-			mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+			mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
 
 			timeo = unix_stream_data_wait(sk, timeo, last,
 						      last_len);
@@ -2331,7 +2332,7 @@ again:
 				goto out;
 			}
 
-			mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+			mutex_lock(&u->iolock);
 			continue;
 unlock:
 			unix_state_unlock(sk);
@@ -2434,7 +2435,7 @@ unlock:
 		}
 	} while (size);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
 	if (state->msg)
 		scm_recv(sock, state->msg, &scm, flags);
 	else
@@ -2475,9 +2476,9 @@ static ssize_t skb_unix_socket_splice(st
 	int ret;
 	struct unix_sock *u = unix_sk(sk);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
 	ret = splice_to_pipe(pipe, spd);
-	mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+	mutex_lock(&u->iolock);
 
 	return ret;
 }


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ