netdev - Re: [PATCH net] nfc: avoid potential race condition

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:14:41 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfc: avoid potential race condition

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:21:33 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/09/2021 14:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:26:51AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:  
> >> On 23/09/2021 08:50, Dan Carpenter wrote:  
>  [...]  
> >>
> >> I think the difference between this llcp_sock code and above transport,
> >> is lack of writer to llcp_sock->local with whom you could race.
> >>
> >> Commits c0cfa2d8a788fcf4 and 6a2c0962105ae8ce causing the
> >> multi-transport race show nicely assigns to vsk->transport when module
> >> is unloaded.
> >>
> >> Here however there is no writer to llcp_sock->local, except bind and
> >> connect and their error paths. The readers which you modify here, have
> >> to happen after bind/connect. You cannot have getsockopt() or release()
> >> before bind/connect, can you? Unless you mean here the bind error path,
> >> where someone calls getsockopt() in the middle of bind()? Is it even
> >> possible?
> >>  
> > 
> > I don't know if this is a real issue either.
> > 
> > Racing with bind would be harmless.  The local pointer would be NULL and
> > it would return harmlessly.  You would have to race with release and
> > have a third trying to release local devices.  (Again that might be
> > wild imagination.  It may not be possible).  
> 
> Indeed. The code looks reasonable, though, so even if race is not really
> reproducible:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>

Would you mind making a call if this is net (which will mean stable) or
net-next material (without the Fixes tags) and reposting? Thanks! :)