netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] unix: Fix race in SOCK_SEQPACKET's unix_dgram

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:   Mon, 05 Dec 2022 10:22:15 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     "Iwashima, Kuniyuki" <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
        Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>
Cc:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] unix: Fix race in SOCK_SEQPACKET's
 unix_dgram_sendmsg()

On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 23:18 +0000, Iwashima, Kuniyuki wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 3, 2022, at 7:44, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru> wrote:
> > > On 01.12.2022 12:30, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2022-11-27 at 01:46 +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > > There is a race resulting in alive SOCK_SEQPACKET socket
> > > > may change its state from TCP_ESTABLISHED to TCP_CLOSE:
> > > > 
> > > > unix_release_sock(peer)                  unix_dgram_sendmsg(sk)
> > > >  sock_orphan(peer)
> > > >    sock_set_flag(peer, SOCK_DEAD)
> > > >                                           sock_alloc_send_pskb()
> > > >                                             if !(sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
> > > >                                               OK
> > > >                                           if sock_flag(peer, SOCK_DEAD)
> > > >                                             sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE
> > > >  sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > After that socket sk remains almost normal: it is able to connect, listen, accept
> > > > and recvmsg, while it can't sendmsg.
> > > > 
> > > > Since this is the only possibility for alive SOCK_SEQPACKET to change
> > > > the state in such way, we should better fix this strange and potentially
> > > > danger corner case.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, move TCP_CLOSE assignment for SOCK_DGRAM sockets under state lock
> > > > to fix race with unix_dgram_connect():
> > > > 
> > > > unix_dgram_connect(other)            unix_dgram_sendmsg(sk)
> > > >                                       unix_peer(sk) = NULL
> > > >                                       unix_state_unlock(sk)
> > > >  unix_state_double_lock(sk, other)
> > > >  sk->sk_state  = TCP_ESTABLISHED
> > > >  unix_peer(sk) = other
> > > >  unix_state_double_unlock(sk, other)
> > > >                                       sk->sk_state  = TCP_CLOSED
> > > > 
> > > > This patch fixes both of these races.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 83301b5367a9 ("af_unix: Set TCP_ESTABLISHED for datagram sockets too")
> > > 
> > > I don't think this commmit introduces the issues, both behavior
> > > described above appear to be present even before?
> > 
> > 1)Hm, I pointed to the commit suggested by Kuniyuki without checking it.
> > 
> > Possible, the real problem commit is dc56ad7028c5 "af_unix: fix potential NULL deref in unix_dgram_connect()",
> > since it added TCP_CLOSED assignment to unix_dgram_sendmsg().
> 
> The commit just moved the assignment.
> 
> Note unix_dgram_disconnected() is called for SOCK_SEQPACKET 
> after releasing the lock, and 83301b5367a9 introduced the 
> TCP_CLOSE assignment.

I'm sorry for the back and forth, I think I initally misread the code.
I agree 83301b5367a9 is good fixes tag.

> > 2)What do you think about initial version of fix?
> > 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/38a920a7-cfba-7929-886d-c3c6effc0c43@ya.ru/
> > 
> > Despite there are some arguments, I'm not still sure that v2 is better.

v1 introduces quite a few behavior changes (different error code,
different cleanup schema) that could be IMHO more risky for a stable
patch. I suggest to pick the minimal change that addresses the issue
(v2 in this case).

Thanks,

Paolo