[PATCH net] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg

The unix_dgram_sendmsg routine use the following test

if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {

to determine if sk and other are in an n:1 association (either
established via connect or by using sendto to send messages to an
unrelated socket identified by address). This isn't correct as the
specified address could have been bound to the sending socket itself or
because this socket could have been connected to itself by the time of
the unix_peer_get but disconnected before the unix_state_lock(other). In
both cases, the if-block would be entered despite other == sk which
might either block the sender unintentionally or lead to trying to unlock
the same spin lock twice for a non-blocking send. Add a other != sk
check to guard against this.

Fixes: 7d267278a9ec ("unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue")
Reported-By: Philipp Hahn <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <redacted>
---

diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
index 29be035..f1ca279 100644
--- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
+++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c

@@ -1781,7 +1781,12 @@ restart_locked:
 			goto out_unlock;
 	}
 
-	if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {
+	/* other == sk && unix_peer(other) != sk if
+	 * - unix_peer(sk) == NULL, destination address bound to sk
+	 * - unix_peer(sk) == sk by time of get but disconnected before lock
+	 */
+	if (other != sk &&
+	    unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {
 		if (timeo) {
 			timeo = unix_wait_for_peer(other, timeo);
 

Hello Rainer,

Am 11.02.2016 um 20:37 schrieb Rainer Weikusat:

After applying that patch at least my machine running the samba test no
longer crashes. So you might add
Tested-by: Philipp Hahn <redacted>

Thanks for looking it that issues.

Philipp

From: Rainer Weikusat <redacted>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:37:27 +0000

The unix_dgram_sendmsg routine use the following test

if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {

to determine if sk and other are in an n:1 association (either
established via connect or by using sendto to send messages to an
unrelated socket identified by address). This isn't correct as the
specified address could have been bound to the sending socket itself or
because this socket could have been connected to itself by the time of
the unix_peer_get but disconnected before the unix_state_lock(other). In
both cases, the if-block would be entered despite other == sk which
might either block the sender unintentionally or lead to trying to unlock
the same spin lock twice for a non-blocking send. Add a other != sk
check to guard against this.

Fixes: 7d267278a9ec ("unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue")
Reported-By: Philipp Hahn <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <redacted>

Also applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.