On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 08:29:58PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:02:23PM +0200, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:11:55PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > [+ppp list and maintainer] > > > > > > This is a bug in ppp_generic.c; it still happens on Linus' tree and it's easily > > > reproducible, see program below. The bug is that the PPPIOCDETACH ioctl doesn't > > > consider that the file can still be attached to epoll instances even when > > > ->f_count == 1. > > > > Right. What would it take to remove the file for the epoll instances? > > Sorry for the naive question, but I'm not familiar with VFS and didn't > > find a helper function we could call. > > > > There is eventpoll_release_file(), but it's not exported to modules. It might > work to call it, but it seems like a hack. > > > > Also, the reproducer doesn't test this but I think ppp_poll(), > > > ppp_read(), and ppp_write() can all race with PPPIOCDETACH, causing > > > use-after-frees as well. > > > > I also believe so. ppp_release() resets ->private_data, and even though > > functions like ppp_read() test ->private_data before executing, there's > > no synchronisation mechanism to ensure that the update is visible > > before the unit or channel is destroyed. Is that the kind of race you > > had in mind? > > Yes, though after looking into it more I *think* these additional races aren't > actually possible, due to the 'f_count < 2' check. These races could only > happen with a shared fd table, but in that case fdget() would increment f_count > for the duration of each operation, resulting in 'f_count >= 2' if both ioctl() > and something else is running on the same file concurrently. > > Note that this also means PPPIOCDETACH doesn't work at all if called from a > multithreaded application... > > > > > > Any chance that PPPIOCDETACH can simply be removed, > > > given that it's apparently been "deprecated" for 16 years? > > > Does anyone use it? > > > > The only users I'm aware of are pppd versions older than ppp-2.4.2 > > (released in November 2003). But even at that time, there were issues > > with PPPIOCDETACH as pppd didn't seem to react properly when this call > > failed. An Internet search on the "PPPIOCDETACH file->f_count=" kernel > > log string, or on the "Couldn't release PPP unit: Invalid argument" > > error message of pppd, returns several related bug reports. > > > > Originally, PPPIOCDETACH never failed, but testing ->f_count was > > later introduced to fix crashes when the file descriptor had been > > duplicated. It seems that this was motivated by polling issues too. > > > > Long story short, it looks like PPPIOCDETACH never has worked well > > and we have at least two more bugs to fix. Given how it has proven > > fragile, I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more lurking > > around. I'd say that it's probably safer to drop it than to add more > > workarounds and playing wack-a-mole with those bugs. > > IMO, if we can get away with removing it without any users noticing, that would > be much better than trying to fix it with a VFS-level hack, and probably missing > some cases. I'll send a patch to get things started... > Yes, I fully agree. That looks much safer, and given the track record of this ioctl I very much doubt anyone would depend on it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
