On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 13:21 +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 10:57 +0100, Jan Karcher wrote:
>
> > We think it might be an option to secure the path in this function with
> > the smc->clcsock_release_lock.
> >
> > ```
> > lock_sock(&smc->sk);
> > if (smc->use_fallback) {
> > if (!smc->clcsock) {
> > release_sock(&smc->sk);
> > return -EBADF;
> > }
> > + mutex_lock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> > answ = smc->clcsock->ops->ioctl(smc->clcsock, cmd, arg);
> > + mutex_unlock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> > release_sock(&smc->sk);
> > return answ;
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > What do yo think about this?
>
> You're trying to fix it on the wrong path. FIOASYNC is a generic rather
> than protocol-specific thing. So userspace 'ioctl(sock, FIOASYNC, [])'
> call is handled with:
>
> -> sys_ioctl()
> -> do_vfs_ioctl()
> -> ioctl_fioasync()
> -> filp->f_op->fasync() (which is sock_fasync() for all sockets)
>
> rather than 'sock->ops->ioctl(...)'.
Any progress on this?
Dmitry
