Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1333073

Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 13:25 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Philipp Hahn <pmhahn@pmhahn.de> writes:
> 
> > Hello Rainer,
> > 
> > Am 11.02.2016 um 20:37 schrieb Rainer Weikusat:
> > > The unix_dgram_sendmsg routine use the following test
> > > 
> > > if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > This isn't correct as the> specified address could have been bound to
> > > the sending socket itself
> 
> [...]
> 
> > After applying that patch at least my machine running the samba test no
> > longer crashes.
> 
> There's a possible gotcha in there: Send-to-self used to be limited by
> the queue limit. But the rationale for that (IIRC) was that someone
> could keep using newly created sockets to queue ever more data to a
> single, unrelated receiver. I don't think this should apply when
> receiving and sending sockets are identical. But that's just my
> opinion. The other option would be to avoid the unix_state_double_lock
> for sk == other.

Given that unix_state_double_lock() already handles sk == other, I'm
not sure why you think it needs to be avoided.

> I'd be willing to change this accordingly if someone
> thinks the queue limit should apply to send-to-self.

If we don't check the queue limit here, does anything else prevent the
queue growing to the point it's a DoS?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Philipp Hahn <pmhahn@pmhahn.de> - 2016-02-11 14:50 +0100
  Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-11 17:00 +0100
    Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-02-11 18:10 +0100
      Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +0100
        Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-11 19:00 +0100
        Re: Bug 4.1.16: self-detected stall in net/unix/? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-11 19:40 +0100
          [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-11 20:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in  unix_dgram_sendmsg Philipp Hahn <pmhahn@pmhahn.de> - 2016-02-12 10:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-12 14:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in  unix_dgram_sendmsg Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-02-12 21:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-12 21:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in  unix_dgram_sendmsg Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-02-12 21:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2016-02-12 22:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in  unix_dgram_sendmsg David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2016-02-16 19:00 +0100

csiph-web