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, 09 Apr 2014 12:32:48 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <>
	Vlad Yasevich <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: sctp: test if association is dead in sctp_wake_up_waiters

On 04/09/2014 10:09 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 01:10 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>  > On 04/08/2014 06:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>  >> In function sctp_wake_up_waiters() we need to involve a test
>  >> if the association is declared dead. If so, we don't have any
>  >> reference to a possible sibling association anymore and need
>  >> to invoke sctp_write_space() instead and normally walk the
>  >> socket's associations and notify them of new wmem space. The
>  >> reason for special casing is that, otherwise, we could run
>  >> into the following issue:
>  >>
>  >> sctp_association_free()
>  >> `-> list_del(&asoc->asocs)         <-- poisons list pointer
>  >>      asoc->base.dead = true
>  >>      sctp_outq_free(&asoc->outqueue)
>  >>      `-> __sctp_outq_teardown()
>  >>       `-> sctp_chunk_free()
>  >>        `-> consume_skb()
>  >>         `-> sctp_wfree()
>  >>          `-> sctp_wake_up_waiters() <-- dereferences poisoned pointers
>  >>                                         if asoc->ep->sndbuf_policy=0
>  >>
>  >> Therefore, only walk the list in an 'optimized' way if we find
>  >> that the current association is still active. It's also more
>  >> clean in that context to just use list_del_init() when we call
>  >> sctp_association_free(). Stress-testing seems fine now.
>  >
>  > One of the reasons that we don't use list_del_init() here is that
>  > we want to be able to trap on uninitialized/corrupt list manipulation,
>  > just like you did.  If it wasn't there, the bug would have been hidden.
>  >
>  > Please keep it there.  The rest of the patch is fine.
> Test run over night and I've seen no issues.
> But I'd still question the usage of asoc->base.dead though, I think
> this approach of testing for asoc->base.dead is a bit racy (perhaps
> general usage of it, imho) - at least here there's a tiny window where
> we poison pointers before we actually declare the associaton dead.
> Also, I think even if we would have deleted ourselves from the list
> after declaring the association dead, a different CPU accessing this
> association via sctp_wfree() might already have gotten past the
> asoc->base.dead test while we declare it dead in the meantime.

Ok, I think we can scratch that thought ... what happens is that parallel
calls to sctp_sendmsg() are protected under lock_sock()/release_sock()
pair as already stated in the code and within that lock, we are setting
sctp_set_owner_w() for each chunk. When we call sctp_primitive_SEND(),
still under lock, we might eventually end up in sctp_packet_transmit(),
if I follow the path correctly, and orphan the skb in sctp_packet_set_owner_w()
[ which basically would mean, we actually uncharge the accounted memory by
orphaning _before_ we call dev_queue_xmit() since commit 4c3a5bdae293
("sctp: Don't charge for data in sndbuf again when transmitting packet")
but that's perhaps a different story ] and set a new destructor. The
only thing where in that context an association can be freed up by
sctp_association_free() is if sctp_primitive_SEND() returns with error.
So even in that case, we're still protected under lock_sock()/release_sock()
when we flush the outq, so testing asoc->base.dead should be okay then,
quite unintuitive though. Thus, patch seems fine, if wished, I could
still document that in the commit message? Vlad, are we on the same page? ;)
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