From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, minipli@googlemail.com,
normalperson@yhbt.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, davidel@xmailserver.org,
dave@stgolabs.net, olivier@mauras.ch, pageexec@freemail.hu,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram_poll()
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:29:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vba1i383.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5625073C.5010809@akamai.com> (Jason Baron's message of "Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:07:40 -0400")
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> writes:
> On 10/18/2015 04:58 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> The idea behind 'the wait queue' (insofar I'm aware of it) is that it
>> will be used as list of threads who need to be notified when the
>> associated event occurs. Since you seem to argue that the run-of-the-mill
>> algorithm is too slow for this particular case, is there anything to
>> back this up?
>>
>
> Generally the poll() routines only add to a wait queue once at the
> beginning, and all subsequent calls to poll() simply check the wakeup
> conditions. So here you are proposing to add/remove to the wait queue on
> subsequent invocations of poll(). So the initial patch I did, continued
> in the usual pattern and only added once on registration or connect().
The code uses the private member of a wait_queue_t to record if it the
add_wait_queue was already executed so the add/remove will only happen
if the wakeup condition changed in the meantime (which usually ought to
be the case, though). As far as I understand this, this really only
makes a difference for epoll as only epoll will keep everything on the
wait queues managed by it between 'polling calls'. In order to support
epoll-style wait queue management outside of epoll, the poll management
code would need to execute a cleanup callback instead of just the setup
callback it already executes.
> 1)
>
> In unix_peer_wake_relay() function, 'sk_wq' is an __rcu pointer and thus
> it requires proper dereferencing. Something like:
>
> struct unix_sock *u;
> struct socket_wq *wq;
>
> u = container_of(wait, struct unix_sock, wait);
> rcu_read_lock();
> wq = rcu_dereference(u->sk.sk_wq);
> if (wq_has_sleeper(wq))
> wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&wq->wait, key);
> rcu_read_unlock();
I think this may be unecessary but I need more time to check this than
the odd "half an hour after work after 11pm [UK time]" I could put into
this today.
> 2)
>
> For the case of epoll() in edge triggered mode we need to ensure that
> when we return -EAGAIN from unix_dgram_sendmsg() when unix_recvq_full()
> is true, we need to add a unix_peer_wake_connect() call to guarantee a
> wakeup. Otherwise, we are going to potentially hang there.
I consider this necessary.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-20 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-02 20:43 [PATCH v2 0/3] af_unix: fix use-after-free Jason Baron
2015-10-02 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram_poll() Jason Baron
2015-10-03 5:46 ` Mathias Krause
2015-10-03 17:02 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-04 17:41 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-05 16:31 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-05 16:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-10-05 17:20 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-05 17:55 ` Jason Baron
2015-10-12 20:41 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-14 3:44 ` Jason Baron
2015-10-14 17:47 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-15 2:54 ` Jason Baron
2015-10-18 20:58 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-19 15:07 ` Jason Baron
2015-10-20 22:29 ` Rainer Weikusat [this message]
2015-10-21 17:34 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-28 16:46 ` [RFC] " Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-28 17:57 ` Jason Baron
2015-10-29 14:23 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-30 20:52 ` [RFC] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram_poll()/ 4.2.5 Rainer Weikusat
[not found] ` <57d2f5b6aae251957bff7a1a52b8bf2c@core-hosting.net>
2015-11-02 21:55 ` Rainer Weikusat
2015-10-02 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] af_unix: Convert gc_flags to flags Jason Baron
2015-10-02 20:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] af_unix: optimize the unix_dgram_recvmsg() Jason Baron
2015-10-05 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-05 17:13 ` Jason Baron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87vba1i383.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com \
--to=rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=olivier@mauras.ch \
--cc=pageexec@freemail.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.