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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:57:36 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "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 Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:32:00PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case Dmitry reported, unix_dgram_sendmsg() calls unix_autobind(),
>>>>> not SOCK_STREAM.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've noticed.  What I'm asking is what in there needs autobind triggered
>>>> on sendmsg and why doesn't the same need affect the SOCK_STREAM case?
>>>>
>>>>> I guess some lock, perhaps the u->bindlock could be dropped before
>>>>> acquiring the next one (sb_writer), but I need to double check.
>>>>
>>>> Bad idea, IMO - do you *want* autobind being able to come through while
>>>> bind(2) is busy with mknod?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ping. This is still happening on HEAD.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your reminder. Mind to give the attached patch (compile only)
>> a try? I take another approach to fix this deadlock, which moves the
>> unix_mknod() out of unix->bindlock. Not sure if there is any unexpected
>> impact with this way.
>
>
> I instantly hit:
>

Oh, sorry about it, I forgot to initialize struct path...

Attached is the updated version, I just did a boot test, no crash at least. ;)

Thanks!

View attachment "unix.diff" of type "text/plain" (1695 bytes)