linux-kernel - Re: fs, net: deadlock between bind/splice on af

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: <20161209013208.GW1555@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 01:32:08 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: fs, net: deadlock between bind/splice on af_unix

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:08:27PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Chain exists of:
> >  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> >        CPU0                    CPU1
> >        ----                    ----
> >   lock(sb_writers#5);
> >                                lock(&u->bindlock);
> >                                lock(sb_writers#5);
> >   lock(&pipe->mutex/1);
> 
> This looks false positive, probably just needs lockdep_set_class()
> to set keys for pipe->mutex and unix->bindlock.

I'm afraid that it's not a false positive at all.

Preparations:
	* create an AF_UNIX socket.
	* set SOCK_PASSCRED on it.
	* create a pipe.

Child 1: splice from pipe to socket; locks pipe and proceeds down towards
unix_dgram_sendmsg().

Child 2: splice from pipe to /mnt/foo/bar; requests write access to /mnt
and blocks on attempt to lock the pipe already locked by (1).

Child 3: freeze /mnt; blocks until (2) is done

Child 4: bind() the socket to /mnt/barf; grabs ->bindlock on the socket and
proceeds to create /mnt/barf, which blocks due to fairness of freezer (no
extra write accesses to something that is in process of being frozen).

_Now_ (1) gets around to unix_dgram_sendmsg().  We still have NULL u->addr,
since bind() has not gotten through yet.  We also have SOCK_PASSCRED set,
so we attempt autobind; it blocks on the ->bindlock, which won't be
released until bind() is done (at which point we'll see non-NULL u->addr
and bugger off from autobind), but bind() won't succeed until /mnt
goes through the freeze-thaw cycle, which won't happen until (2) finishes,
which won't happen until (1) unlocks the pipe.  Deadlock.

Granted, ->bindlock is taken interruptibly, so it's not that much of
a problem (you can kill the damn thing), but you would need to intervene
and kill it.

Why do we do autobind there, anyway, and why is it conditional on
SOCK_PASSCRED?  Note that e.g. for SOCK_STREAM we can bloody well get
to sending stuff without autobind ever done - just use socketpair()
to create that sucker and we won't be going through the connect()
at all.