[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170210033306.GA770@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:33:06 -0800
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, jarno@....org,
philip.pettersson@...il.com, weongyo.linux@...il.com,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net/packet: use-after-free in packet_rcv_fanout
On (02/09/17 19:19), Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> More likely the bug is in fanout_add(), with a buggy sequence in error
> case, and not correct locking.
>
> kfree(po->rollover);
> po->rollover = NULL;
>
> Two cpus entering fanout_add() (using the same af_packet socket,
> syzkaller courtesy...) might both see po->fanout being NULL.
>
> Then they grab the mutex. Too late...
I'm not sure I follow- aiui the panic was in acceessing the
sk_receive_queue.lock in a socket that had been closed earlier. I think
the assumption is that rcu_read_lock_bh in __dev_queue_xmit (and
rcu_read_lock in dev_queue_xmit_nit?) should make sure that the nit
packet delivery can be done safely, and the synchronize_net in
packet_release() makes sure that the Tx paths are quiesced before freeing
the socket. What is the race-hole here? Does it have to do with the
_bh and softirq context, somehow?
--Sowmini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists