netdev - Re: [PATCH] vsock: remove vsock from connected table when connect is interrupted by a signal

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: <20220216201459.5a5b58e9@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:14:59 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     Seth Forshee <sforshee@...italocean.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsock: remove vsock from connected table when connect
 is interrupted by a signal

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:11:22 +0100 Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >vsock_connect() expects that the socket could already be in the
> >TCP_ESTABLISHED state when the connecting task wakes up with a signal
> >pending. If this happens the socket will be in the connected table, and
> >it is not removed when the socket state is reset. In this situation it's
> >common for the process to retry connect(), and if the connection is
> >successful the socket will be added to the connected table a second
> >time, corrupting the list.
> >
> >Prevent this by calling vsock_remove_connected() if a signal is received
> >while waiting for a connection. This is harmless if the socket is not in
> >the connected table, and if it is in the table then removing it will
> >prevent list corruption from a double add.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <sforshee@...italocean.com>
> >---
> > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >index 3235261f138d..38baeb189d4e 100644
> >--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >@@ -1401,6 +1401,7 @@ static int vsock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr,
> > 			sk->sk_state = sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED ? TCP_CLOSING : TCP_CLOSE;
> > 			sock->state = SS_UNCONNECTED;
> > 			vsock_transport_cancel_pkt(vsk);
> >+			vsock_remove_connected(vsk);
> > 			goto out_wait;
> > 		} else if (timeout == 0) {
> > 			err = -ETIMEDOUT;
> 
> Thanks for this fix! The patch LGTM:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> 
> 
> @Dave, @Jakub, since we need this also in stable branches, I was going 
> to suggest adding a Fixes tag, but I'm a little confused: the issue 
> seems to have always been there, so from commit d021c344051a ("VSOCK: 
> Introduce VM Sockets"), but to use vsock_remove_connected() as we are 
> using in this patch, we really need commit d5afa82c977e ("vsock: correct 
> removal of socket from the list").
> 
> Commit d5afa82c977e was introduces in v5.3 and it was backported in 
> v4.19 and v4.14, but not in v4.9.
> So if we want to backport this patch also for v4.9, I think we need 
> commit d5afa82c977e as well.

The fixes tag sounds good. Dunno what's the best way to handle this
case. We can add a mention of the dependency to the patch description.
Personally I'd keep things simple, add the Fixes tag and keep an eye
on the backports, if 4.9 doesn't get it - email Greg and explain.