netdev - Re: fs, net: deadlock between bind/splice on af

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: <CACT4Y+Yf5S1OiNdd8WH=bmge=25m3zOh48QB8iq2nsKESG6Z_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:52:17 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: fs, net: deadlock between bind/splice on af_unix

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > Why do we do autobind there, anyway, and why is it conditional on
>>>>>> > SOCK_PASSCRED?  Note that e.g. for SOCK_STREAM we can bloody well get
>>>>>> > to sending stuff without autobind ever done - just use socketpair()
>>>>>> > to create that sucker and we won't be going through the connect()
>>>>>> > at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case Dmitry reported, unix_dgram_sendmsg() calls unix_autobind(),
>>>>>> not SOCK_STREAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I've noticed.  What I'm asking is what in there needs autobind triggered
>>>>> on sendmsg and why doesn't the same need affect the SOCK_STREAM case?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess some lock, perhaps the u->bindlock could be dropped before
>>>>>> acquiring the next one (sb_writer), but I need to double check.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad idea, IMO - do you *want* autobind being able to come through while
>>>>> bind(2) is busy with mknod?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ping. This is still happening on HEAD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reminder. Mind to give the attached patch (compile only)
>>> a try? I take another approach to fix this deadlock, which moves the
>>> unix_mknod() out of unix->bindlock. Not sure if there is any unexpected
>>> impact with this way.
>>
>>
>> I instantly hit:
>>
>
> Oh, sorry about it, I forgot to initialize struct path...
>
> Attached is the updated version, I just did a boot test, no crash at least. ;)
>
> Thanks!

This works! I did not see the deadlock warning, nor any other related crashes.

Tested-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>