Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:53:07 +0200
Message-ID: <s5hzh722xrw.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        syzbot+1a54a94bd32716796edd@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzbot+9d2abfef257f3e2d4713@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 06/48] ALSA: seq: oss: Serialize ioctls
In-Reply-To: <20200810163717.GA24408@amd>
References: <20200810151804.199494191@linuxfoundation.org>
        <20200810151804.528955642@linuxfoundation.org>
        <20200810163717.GA24408@amd>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:37:17 +0200,
Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > commit 80982c7e834e5d4e325b6ce33757012ecafdf0bb upstream.
> > 
> > Some ioctls via OSS sequencer API may race and lead to UAF when the
> > port create and delete are performed concurrently, as spotted by a
> > couple of syzkaller cases.  This patch is an attempt to address it by
> > serializing the ioctls with the existing register_mutex.
> > 
> > Basically OSS sequencer API is an obsoleted interface and was designed
> > without much consideration of the concurrency.  There are very few
> > applications with it, and the concurrent performance isn't asked,
> > hence this "big hammer" approach should be good enough.
> 
> That really is a "big hammer". And I believe it is too big.
>
> In particular, do we need to drop the lock while sleeping in
> SNDCTL_SEQ_SYNC: => snd_seq_oss_writeq_sync ?

Well, do you see any issue with this for really used applications?
If yes, I'd happily take a look and give finer locking.


thanks,

Takashi