[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <560C9CFE.6090509@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:39:58 -0400
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Olivier Mauras <olivier@...ras.ch>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: List corruption on epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) an AF_UNIX socket
On 09/30/2015 01:54 AM, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 29 September 2015 at 21:09, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com> wrote:
>> However, if we call connect on socket 's', to connect to a new socket 'o2', we
>> drop the reference on the original socket 'o'. Thus, we can now close socket
>> 'o' without unregistering from epoll. Then, when we either close the ep
>> or unregister 'o', we end up with this list corruption. Thus, this is not a
>> race per se, but can be triggered sequentially.
>
> Sounds profound, but the reproducers calls connect only once per
> socket. So there is no "connect to a new socket", no?
> But w/e, see below.
Yes, but it can be reproduced this way too. It can also happen with a
close() on the remote peer 'o', and a send to 'o' from 's', which the
reproducer can do as pointed out Michal. The patch I sent deals with
both cases.
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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