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]
Message-ID: <20090126115012.GA5620@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:50:12 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Martin_MOKR?= =?ISO-8859-2?Q?EJ=A9?= <mmokrejs@...osome.natur.cuni.cz>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix setsockopt() locking errors

On 24-01-2009 23:49, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This survives basic testing here, but I don't know what that counts for
> when I couldn't reproduce the lockdep report in the first place. Please
> review.
> 
> 
> Vegard
> 
> 
> From cc8bcd1c4fd219a31d6d191aefa4b4b57dadb9b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:44:16 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] net: fix setsockopt() locking errors
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> 
> Martin MOKREJ.  <mmokrejs@...osome.natur.cuni.cz> reported:
>> =======================================================
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.29-rc2-git1 #1
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> tcpdump/3734 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c1053294>] might_fault+0x30/0x6b
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>>  (sk_lock-AF_PACKET){--..}, at: [<c12798c8>] sock_setsockopt+0x12b/0x4a4
>>
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> It turns out that sock_setsockopt() is calling copy_from_user() while
> holding the lock on the socket.

I guess it has been like this for some time, so it would be nice to
mention what scenario happens here, or IOW what exactly needs to get
these locks in reverse order.

> We fix it by splitting the ioctl code
> so that one switch handles the ioctls that have their own code for
> reading from userspace, and one switch handles the cases that require
> no additional reading.
> 
> Reported-by: Martin MOKREJ.  <mmokrejs@...osome.natur.cuni.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/core/sock.c |  134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index f3a0d08..6bd618d 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -424,6 +424,80 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int sock_linger(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, int optlen)
...
> +static int sock_set_rcvtimeo(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, int optlen)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	long rcvtimeo;
> +
> +	ret = sock_set_timeout(&rcvtimeo, optval, optlen);

A check for error is needed here and below.

> +
> +	lock_sock(sk);
> +	sk->sk_rcvtimeo = rcvtimeo;
> +	release_sock(sk);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int sock_set_sndtimeo(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, int optlen)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	long sndtimeo;
> +
> +	ret = sock_set_timeout(&sndtimeo, optval, optlen);
> +
> +	lock_sock(sk);
> +	sk->sk_sndtimeo = sndtimeo;
> +	release_sock(sk);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
...

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ