[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUtirzcm901Gh6918g2yROo3FFKb6Vx87Wtj7M31wE6DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:57:36 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.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 Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:32:00PM -0800, Cong Wang 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!
View attachment "unix.diff" of type "text/plain" (1695 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists