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  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:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:42:07 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <>
To:	Patrick McHardy <>
Cc:	Pavel Emelianov <>, David Miller <>,
	Linux Netdev List <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,, Kirill Korotaev <>
Subject: Re: [NETLINK] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ( wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ( wrote:
> > 
> >>Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
> >>
> >>There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
> >>that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
> >>callback is freed.
> > 
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, why not to fix a netlink_dump_start() to remove
> > callback in error path, since in 'no-error' path it removes it in
> > netlink_dump().
> It already does (netlink_destroy_callback), but that doesn't help
> with this race though since without this patch we don't enter the
> error path.

I thought that with releasing a socket, which will have a callback
attached only results in a leak of the callback? In that case we can
just free it in dump() just like it is done in no-error path already.
Or do I miss something additional?

> > And, btw, can release method be called while socket is being used, I
> > thought about proper reference counters should prevent this, but not
> > 100% sure with RCU dereferencing of the descriptor.
> The problem is asynchronous processing of the dump request in the
> context of a different process. Process requests a dump, message
> is queued and process returns from sendmsg since some other process
> is already processing the queue. Then the process closes the socket,
> resulting in netlink_release being called. When the dump request
> is finally processed the race Pavel described might happen. This
> can only happen for netlink families that use mutex_try_lock for
> queue processing of course.

Doesn't it called from ->sk_data_ready() which is synchronous with
respect to sendmsg, not sure about conntrack though, but it looks so?

	Evgeniy Polyakov
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists