[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1448473891.24696.21.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:51:31 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: use-after-free in sock_wake_async
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 17:30 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> In case this is wrong, it obviously implies that sk_sleep(sk) must not
> be used anywhere as it accesses the same struck sock, hence, when that
> can "suddenly" disappear despite locks are used in the way indicated
> above, there is now safe way to invoke that, either, as it just does a
> rcu_dereference_raw based on the assumption that the caller knows that
> the i-node (and the corresponding wait queue) still exist.
>
Oh well.
sk_sleep() is not used if the return is NULL
This is exactly why we have such code in critical functions :
wqueue = sk_sleep(sk);
if (wqueue && waitqueue_active(wqueue))
wake_up_interruptible_poll(wqueue,
POLLOUT | POLLWRNORM | POLLWRBAND);
We already took care of this problem years ago, but missed the ASYNC
case (that almost nobody really uses these days)
--
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