MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161209110155.GW22655@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <20161129164859.GD26673@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAM_iQpX_KBEpL1dCBNMgZQ-VQJM9nmsVdRPVK-Aen9k0gV3f0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161130045207.GE26673@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20161209060248.GT22655@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <CAM_iQpWRe0tDk=wvXONG7hamH3EtE0nJuAOF1kVKJgdpMvz2DA@mail.gmail.com> <20161209110155.GW22655@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 20:13:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpV2GuKhR_1tD5jjACeD+pajJLws08CLmeYAo+rsjxvB0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1518
Lines: 34

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 22:57, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > I also tried to extend Cong Wang's idea to attempt to proactively respond to a
>> > NETLINK_URELEASE on the audit_sock and reset it, but ran into a locking error
>> > stack dump using mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex) in the notifier callback.
>> > Eliminating the lock since the sock is dead anways eliminates the error.
>> >
>> > Is it safe?  I'll resubmit if this looks remotely sane.  Meanwhile I'll try to
>> > get the test case to compile.
>>
>> It doesn't look safe, because 'audit_sock', 'audit_nlk_portid' and 'audit_pid'
>> are updated as a whole and race between audit_receive_msg() and
>> NETLINK_URELEASE.
>
> This is what I expected and why I originally added the mutex lock in the
> callback...  The dumps I got were bare with no wrapper identifying the
> process context or specific error, so I'm at a bit of a loss how to
> solve this (without thinking more about it) other than instinctively
> removing the mutex.

Netlink notifier can safely be converted to blocking one, I will send
a patch.

But I seriously doubt you really need NETLINK_URELEASE here,
it adds nothing but overhead, b/c the netlink notifier is called on
every netlink socket in the system, but for net exit path, that is
relatively a slow path.

Also, kauditd_send_skb() needs audit_cmd_mutex too.

I will send a formal patch.

Thanks.