From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] socket: close race condition between sock_close()
 and sockfs_setattr()
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 23:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <20180607223242.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180607203949.16945-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
 <20180607212631.GW30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAM_iQpUpBYC0MpjOsYLn5ZnsjS3pSHbZo2AE=trfrsJNxQYyxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180607220446.GX30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAM_iQpWs8pLANoQhUBsJLfwJc6V5db69v1SFeLg_Uu0LdgJzMA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        shankarapailoor <shankarapailoor@gmail.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57310 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751938AbeFGWcp (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:32:45 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpWs8pLANoQhUBsJLfwJc6V5db69v1SFeLg_Uu0LdgJzMA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 03:15:15PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:

> > You do realize that the same ->setattr() can be called by way of
> > chown() on /proc/self/fd/<n>, right?  What would you do there -
> > bump refcount on that struct file when traversing that symlink and
> > hold it past the end of pathname resolution, until... what exactly?
> 
> I was thinking about this:
> 
>         error = user_path_at(dfd,....); // hold dfd when needed
> 
>         if (!error) {
>                 error = chown_common(&path, mode);
>                 path_put(&path);      // release dfd if held
> 
> With this, we can guarantee ->release() is only possibly called
> after chown_common() which is after ->setattr() too.

No, we can't.  You are assuming that there *is* dfd and that it points
to the opened socket we are going to operate upon.  That is not guaranteed.
At all.  If e.g. 42 is a file descriptor of an opened socket, plain chown(2)
on /proc/self/fd/42 will trigger that ->setattr().  No dfd in sight.
We do run across an opened file at some point, all right - when we traverse
the symlink in procfs.  You can't bump ->f_count there.  Even leaving aside
the "where would I stash the reference to that file?" and "how long would I
hold it?", you can't bump ->f_count on other process' files.  That would
bugger the expectations of close(2) callers.