[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hzh722xrw.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:53:07 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+1a54a94bd32716796edd@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+9d2abfef257f3e2d4713@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 06/48] ALSA: seq: oss: Serialize ioctls
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:37:17 +0200,
Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > commit 80982c7e834e5d4e325b6ce33757012ecafdf0bb upstream.
> >
> > Some ioctls via OSS sequencer API may race and lead to UAF when the
> > port create and delete are performed concurrently, as spotted by a
> > couple of syzkaller cases. This patch is an attempt to address it by
> > serializing the ioctls with the existing register_mutex.
> >
> > Basically OSS sequencer API is an obsoleted interface and was designed
> > without much consideration of the concurrency. There are very few
> > applications with it, and the concurrent performance isn't asked,
> > hence this "big hammer" approach should be good enough.
>
> That really is a "big hammer". And I believe it is too big.
>
> In particular, do we need to drop the lock while sleeping in
> SNDCTL_SEQ_SYNC: => snd_seq_oss_writeq_sync ?
Well, do you see any issue with this for really used applications?
If yes, I'd happily take a look and give finer locking.
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists