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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:29:12 +0100
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        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 Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 01:21:48PM -0800, Cong Wang 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 don't think this is the right approach.

Currently the file creation is potponed until unix_bind can no longer
fail otherwise. With it reordered, it may be someone races you with a
different path and now you are left with a file to clean up. Except it
is quite unclear for me if you can unlink it.

I don't have a good idea how to fix it. A somewhat typical approach
would introduce an intermediate state ("under construction") and drop
the lock between calling into unix_mknod.

In this particular case, perhaps you could repurpose gc_flags as a
general flags carrier and add a 'binding in process' flag to test.