netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on recv() with MSG

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: <87twqo7vub.fsf@bytheb.org>
Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:07:56 -0400
From:	Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on recv() with MSG_PEEK flag

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 05:18 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> From: Aaron Conole <aaron@...heb.org>
>> 
>
> I am wondering what this is expected to do, and how this code would
> possibly not trigger a crash.
Are you suspecting it should crash from a possible double-lock case?
On line 2125, there is an unconditional unlock, which should be 
guaranteeing that there is no longer a condition to 'double lock' the
socket.

With my patch, I re-do a lock just before entering skb_peek_next, and
then loop to again: label (line 2078); I admit that there is a check
at the top of the loop which I do not include (the check for SOCK_DEAD).
Do you think this check is needed (and the cause for your concern on
the suspected crash)?

I will re-do the testing as you outline later, and report the results.

> Are you 100% sure you tested this patch and code path ?
Yes, 100%; I used the python code attached to the bug before hacking on
this function whatsoever to ensure that the bug still exists in current
kernel (it does). Then after my patch, I reran the same test. There 
were no oops, bugs, panics, or other errors reported.

> Before resending v3, please make sure to compile and test with
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y. Add a temporary (in your tree, not final patch)
>
> pr_err_once("went there at least one time\n");
>
> (to make sure this code path was tested)
I will do this testing as requested; my current config does include
LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y.

> It might be time to get rid of unix_sk macro for a proper function to
> avoid these kind of errors.
>
> diff --git a/include/net/af_unix.h b/include/net/af_unix.h
> index 4a167b30a12f..cb1b9bbda332 100644
> --- a/include/net/af_unix.h
> +++ b/include/net/af_unix.h
> @@ -63,7 +63,11 @@ struct unix_sock {
>  #define UNIX_GC_MAYBE_CYCLE	1
>  	struct socket_wq	peer_wq;
>  };
> -#define unix_sk(__sk) ((struct unix_sock *)__sk)
> +
> +static inline struct unix_sock *unix_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> +	return (struct unix_sock *)sk;
> +}
>  
>  #define peer_wait peer_wq.wait
If you'd like, I'll add this to a V3 version of this patch, re-do
testing with your requested config above, and report the results.

> Thanks.
Thank you for the feedback, it is very good.

-Aaron
--
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