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 22:29 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).