[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3FhqUL1gApPhDMT@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:29:13 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
syzbot+278279efdd2730dd14bf@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net v2] kcm: close race conditions on sk_receive_queue
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:13:23AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hello,
> On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 11:46 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > @@ -1085,53 +1085,17 @@ static int kcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct sk_buff *kcm_wait_data(struct sock *sk, int flags,
> > - long timeo, int *err)
> > -{
> > - struct sk_buff *skb;
> > -
> > - while (!(skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue))) {
> > - if (sk->sk_err) {
> > - *err = sock_error(sk);
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DONE))
> > - return NULL;
>
> It looks like skb_recv_datagram() ignores the SOCK_DONE flag, so this
> change could potentially miss some wait_data end coditions. On the flip
> side I don't see any place where the SOCK_DONE flag is set for the kcm
> socket, so this should be safe, but could you please document this in
> the commit message?
Good catch. Indeed, this flags seems only used by stream sockets, I will
include this in the commit message.
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -1187,11 +1147,7 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
> >
> > /* Only support splice for SOCKSEQPACKET */
> >
> > - timeo = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
> > -
> > - lock_sock(sk);
> > -
> > - skb = kcm_wait_data(sk, flags, timeo, &err);
> > + skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, &err);
> > if (!skb)
> > goto err_out;
> >
> > @@ -1219,13 +1175,11 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
> > * finish reading the message.
> > */
> >
> > - release_sock(sk);
> > -
> > + skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
> > return copied;
> >
> > err_out:
> > - release_sock(sk);
> > -
> > + skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
>
> We can reach here with skb == NULL and skb_free_datagram() ->
> __kfree_skb() -> skb_release_all() does not deal correctly with NULL
> skb, you need to check for skb explicitly here (or rearrange the error
> paths in a suitable way).
>
Are you sure? skb_free_datagram() is just consume_skb() which is guarded
by skb_unref() which takes NULL and returns false.
1195 static inline bool skb_unref(struct sk_buff *skb)
1196 {
1197 if (unlikely(!skb))
1198 return false;
1027 void consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
1028 {
1029 if (!skb_unref(skb))
1030 return;
320 void skb_free_datagram(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
321 {
322 consume_skb(skb);
323 }
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists