public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
To: Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net/unix: sk_socket can disappear when state is unlocked
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 20:16:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1432318562.3430833.275929105.372EB77C@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <555F583B.1010309@android.com>

On Fri, May 22, 2015, at 18:24, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 08:35 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > I still wonder if we need to actually recheck the condition and not
> > simply break out of unix_stream_data_wait:
> >
> > We return to the unix_stream_recvmsg loop and recheck the
> > sk_receive_queue. At this point sk_receive_queue is not really protected
> > with unix_state_lock against concurrent modification with unix_release,
> > as such we could end up concurrently dequeueing packets if socket is
> > DEAD.
> sock destroy(sic) is called before sock_orphan which sets SOCK_DEAD, so 
> the receive queue has already been drained.

I am still afraid that there is a race:

When we break out in unix_stream_data_wait we most of the time hit the
continue statement in unix_stream_recvmsg. Albeit we acquired state lock
again, we could end up in a situation where the sk_receive_queue is not
completely drained. We would miss the recheck of the sk_shutdown mask,
because it is possible we dequeue a non-null skb from the receive queue.
This is because unix_release_sock acquires state lock, sets appropriate
flags but the draining of the receive queue does happen without locks,
state lock is unlocked before that. So theoretically both, release_sock
and recvmsg could dequeue skbs concurrently in nondeterministic
behavior.

The fix would be to recheck SOCK_DEAD or even better, sk_shutdown right
after we reacquired state_lock and break out of the loop altogether,
maybe with -ECONNRESET.

Thanks,
Hannes

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-22 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-21 16:25 net/unix: sk_socket can disappear when state is unlocked Mark Salyzyn
2015-05-22  9:50 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2015-05-22 14:51   ` Mark Salyzyn
2015-05-22 15:35     ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2015-05-22 16:24       ` Mark Salyzyn
2015-05-22 18:16         ` Hannes Frederic Sowa [this message]
2015-05-22 19:59           ` Mark Salyzyn

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=1432318562.3430833.275929105.372EB77C@webmail.messagingengine.com \
    --to=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=hannes@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=salyzyn@android.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=ying.xue@windriver.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox