Re: [PATCH net v2] net: sctp: test if association is dead in sctp_wake_up_waiters

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/09/2014 01:10 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 06:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> In function sctp_wake_up_waiters() we need to involve a test
>> if the association is declared dead. If so, we don't have any
>> reference to a possible sibling association anymore and need
>> to invoke sctp_write_space() instead and normally walk the
>> socket's associations and notify them of new wmem space. The
>> reason for special casing is that, otherwise, we could run
>> into the following issue:
>>
>> sctp_association_free()
>> `-> list_del(&asoc->asocs)         <-- poisons list pointer
>>      asoc->base.dead = true
>>      sctp_outq_free(&asoc->outqueue)
>>      `-> __sctp_outq_teardown()
>>       `-> sctp_chunk_free()
>>        `-> consume_skb()
>>         `-> sctp_wfree()
>>          `-> sctp_wake_up_waiters() <-- dereferences poisoned pointers
>>                                         if asoc->ep->sndbuf_policy=0
>>
>> Therefore, only walk the list in an 'optimized' way if we find
>> that the current association is still active. It's also more
>> clean in that context to just use list_del_init() when we call
>> sctp_association_free(). Stress-testing seems fine now.
>
> One of the reasons that we don't use list_del_init() here is that
> we want to be able to trap on uninitialized/corrupt list manipulation,
> just like you did.  If it wasn't there, the bug would have been hidden.
>
> Please keep it there.  The rest of the patch is fine.

Test run over night and I've seen no issues.

But I'd still question the usage of asoc->base.dead though, I think
this approach of testing for asoc->base.dead is a bit racy (perhaps
general usage of it, imho) - at least here there's a tiny window where
we poison pointers before we actually declare the associaton dead.

Also, I think even if we would have deleted ourselves from the list
after declaring the association dead, a different CPU accessing this
association via sctp_wfree() might already have gotten past the
asoc->base.dead test while we declare it dead in the meantime.

Imho, this still needs to be resolved differently. I'll look further ...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux