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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:10:20 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH net v3] net: sctp: test if association is dead in sctp_wake_up_waiters

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 when a sctp_primitive_SEND() call
from sctp_sendmsg() fails, and tries to flush an association's
outq, i.e. in the following way:

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. We could also use
list_del_init() in addition when we call sctp_association_free(),
but as Vlad suggests, we want to trap such bugs and thus leave
it poisoned as is.

Why is it safe to resolve the issue by testing for asoc->base.dead?
Parallel calls to sctp_sendmsg() are protected under socket lock,
that is lock_sock()/release_sock(). Only within that path under
lock held, we're setting skb/chunk owner via sctp_set_owner_w().
Eventually, chunks are freed directly by an association still
under that lock. So when traversing association list on destruction
time from sctp_wake_up_waiters() via sctp_wfree(), a different
CPU can't be running sctp_wfree() while another one calls
sctp_association_free() as both happens under the same lock.
Therefore, this can also not race with setting/testing against
asoc->base.dead as we are guaranteed for this to happen in order,
under lock. Further, Vlad says: the times we check asoc->base.dead
is when we've cached an association pointer for later processing.
In between cache and processing, the association may have been
freed and is simply still around due to reference counts. We check
asoc->base.dead under a lock, so it should always be safe to check
and not race against sctp_association_free(). Stress-testing seems
fine now, too.

Fixes: cd253f9f357d ("net: sctp: wake up all assocs if sndbuf policy is per socket")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
---
 v1->v2:
  - leave list_del()
 v2->v3:
  - improved commit message

 net/sctp/socket.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
index 5f83a6a..270d5bd 100644
--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -6604,6 +6604,12 @@ static void sctp_wake_up_waiters(struct sock *sk,
 	if (asoc->ep->sndbuf_policy)
 		return __sctp_write_space(asoc);
 
+	/* If association goes down and is just flushing its
+	 * outq, then just normally notify others.
+	 */
+	if (asoc->base.dead)
+		return sctp_write_space(sk);
+
 	/* Accounting for the sndbuf space is per socket, so we
 	 * need to wake up others, try to be fair and in case of
 	 * other associations, let them have a go first instead
-- 
1.7.11.7

--
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