netdev - Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait

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]

Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:17:32 -0500
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, salyzyn@...roid.com,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, ying.xue@...driver.com,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue



On 11/13/2015 01:51 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:

[...]

>  
> -	if (unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other)) {
> -		if (!timeo) {
> -			err = -EAGAIN;
> -			goto out_unlock;
> -		}
> +	if (unix_peer(sk) == other && !unix_dgram_peer_recv_ready(sk, other)) {

Remind me why the 'unix_peer(sk) == other' is added here? If the remote
is not connected we still want to make sure that we don't overflow the
the remote rcv queue, right?

In terms of this added 'double' lock for both sk and other, where
previously we just held the 'other' lock. I think we could continue to
just hold the 'other' lock unless the remote queue is full, so something
like:

        if (unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other)) {
                bool need_wakeup = false;

		....skipping the blocking case...

                err = -EAGAIN;
                if (!other_connected)
                        goto out_unlock;
                unix_state_unlock(other);
                unix_state_lock(sk);

		/* if remote peer has changed under us, the connect()
                   will wake up any pending waiter, just return -EAGAIN

                if (unix_peer(sk) == other) {
			/* In case we see there is space available
			   queue the wakeup and we will try again. This
			   this should be an unlikely condition */
	 		if (!unix_dgram_peer_wake_me(sk, other))
                                need_wakeup = true;
                }
                unix_state_unlock(sk);
                if (need_wakeup)
                        wake_up_interruptible_poll(sk_sleep(sk),POLLOUT
| POLLWRNORM | POLLWRBAND);
                goto out_free;
        }

So I'm not sure if the 'double' lock really affects any workload, but
the above might be away to avoid it.

Also - it might be helpful to add a 'Fixes:' tag referencing where this
issue started, in the changelog.

Worth mentioning too is that this patch should improve the polling case
here dramatically, as we currently wake the entire queue on every remote
read even when we have room in the rcv buffer. So this patch will cut
down on ctxt switching rate dramatically from what we currently have.

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