netdev - [PATCH net-next] vsock: correct removal of socket from the list

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <MW2PR2101MB11162BBAEC52B232A7B1EFAFC0EF0@MW2PR2101MB1116.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:52:27 +0000
From:   Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
To:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] vsock: correct removal of socket from the list

The current vsock code for removal of socket from the list is both
subject to race and inefficient. It takes the lock, checks whether
the socket is in the list, drops the lock and if the socket was on the
list, deletes it from the list. This is subject to race because as soon
as the lock is dropped once it is checked for presence, that condition
cannot be relied upon for any decision. It is also inefficient because
if the socket is present in the list, it takes the lock twice.

Signed-off-by: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
---
 net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 38 +++++++-------------------------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index d892000..6f063ed 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -282,7 +282,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_insert_connected);
 void vsock_remove_bound(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
 {
 	spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-	__vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
+	if (__vsock_in_bound_table(vsk))
+		__vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
 	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_remove_bound);
@@ -290,7 +291,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_remove_bound);
 void vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
 {
 	spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-	__vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
+	if (__vsock_in_connected_table(vsk))
+		__vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
 	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_remove_connected);
@@ -326,35 +328,10 @@ struct sock *vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_find_connected_socket);
 
-static bool vsock_in_bound_table(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
-{
-	bool ret;
-
-	spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-	ret = __vsock_in_bound_table(vsk);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-
-	return ret;
-}
-
-static bool vsock_in_connected_table(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
-{
-	bool ret;
-
-	spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-	ret = __vsock_in_connected_table(vsk);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock);
-
-	return ret;
-}
-
 void vsock_remove_sock(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
 {
-	if (vsock_in_bound_table(vsk))
-		vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
-
-	if (vsock_in_connected_table(vsk))
-		vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
+	vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
+	vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_remove_sock);
 
@@ -485,8 +462,7 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	 * incoming packets can't find this socket, and to reduce the reference
 	 * count.
 	 */
-	if (vsock_in_connected_table(vsk))
-		vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
+	vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
 
 	sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE;
 
-- 
2.7.4