[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1448980723.25582.24.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 06:38:43 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: memory leak in do_ipv6_setsockopt
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 15:24 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 03:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 15:07 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, we miss inet6_destroy_sock() in SCTP. :-(
> >>
> >> Looks good to me.
> >
> > OK, I will send a formal (and tested ;) ) patch.
>
> I was shortly wondering whether there could be a use-after-free by
> doing this after sctp_destroy_sock() due to the sctp_endpoint_destroy()
> that would eventually drop a ref on the socket, but the endpoint holds
> a separate ref, so we should be good.
>
More generically ->destroy() caller must keep a reference on the socket.
inet_csk_destroy_sock() for example uses sk after
sk->sk_prot->destroy(sk);
--
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