Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue (w/ Fixes:)
From: Rainer Weikusat <hidden>
Date: 2015-11-17 22:49:24
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
Rainer Weikusat [off-list ref] writes: [...]
This leaves only the option of a somewhat incorrect solution and what is or isn't acceptable in this respect is somewhat difficult to decide. The basic options would be
[...]
- retry sending a limited number of times, eg, once, before
returning EAGAIN, on the grounds that this is nicer to the
application and that redoing all the stuff up to the _lock in
dgram_sendmsg can possibly/ likely be avoided
Since it's better to have a specific example of something: Here's
another 'code sketch' of this option (hopefully with less errors this
time, there's an int restart = 0 above):
if (unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other)) {
int need_wakeup;
[...]
need_wakeup = 0;
err = 0;
unix_state_unlock(other);
unix_state_lock(sk);
if (unix_peer(sk) == other) {
if (++restart == 2) {
need_wakeup = unix_dgram_peer_wake_connect(sk, other) &&
sk_receive_queue_len(other) == 0;
err = -EAGAIN;
} else if (unix_dgram_peer_wake_me(sk, other))
err = -EAGAIN;
} else
err = -EAGAIN;
unix_state_unlock(sk);
if (err || !restart) {
if (need_wakeup)
wake_up_interruptible_poll(sk_sleep(sk),
POLLOUT |
POLLWRNORM |
POLLWRBAND);
goto out_free;
}
goto restart;
}
I don't particularly like that, either, and to me, the best option seems
to be to return the spurious EAGAIN if taking both locks unconditionally
is not an option as that's the simplest choice.