archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guillaume Nault <>
To: Eric Biggers <>
Cc:, Paul Mackerras <>,,,,,
	Eric Biggers <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ppp: remove the PPPIOCDETACH ioctl
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:04:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:37:38PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <>
> The PPPIOCDETACH ioctl effectively tries to "close" the given ppp file
> before f_count has reached 0, which is fundamentally a bad idea.  It
> does check 'f_count < 2', which excludes concurrent operations on the
> file since they would only be possible with a shared fd table, in which
> case each fdget() would take a file reference.  However, it fails to
> account for the fact that even with 'f_count == 1' the file can still be
> linked into epoll instances.  As reported by syzbot, this can trivially
> be used to cause a use-after-free.
> Yet, the only known user of PPPIOCDETACH is pppd versions older than
> ppp-2.4.2, which was released almost 15 years ago (November 2003).
> Also, PPPIOCDETACH apparently stopped working reliably at around the
> same time, when the f_count check was added to the kernel, e.g. see
>  Also, the current 'f_count < 2'
> check makes PPPIOCDETACH only work in single-threaded applications; it
> always fails if called from a multithreaded application.
> All pppd versions released in the last 15 years just close() the file
> descriptor instead.
> Therefore, instead of hacking around this bug by exporting epoll
> internals to modules, and probably missing other related bugs, just
> remove the PPPIOCDETACH ioctl and see if anyone actually notices.  Leave
> a stub in place that prints a one-time warning and returns EINVAL.
> Reported-by:
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Cc:
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <>
> ---
> v2: leave a stub in place, rather than removing the ioctl completely.
Thanks a lot for your help on this matter.

BTW, netdev has its own rules wrt. stable backports. You didn't need to
CC: stable@. David handles -stable submissions himself.
Using a 'PATCH net' subject prefix would have made it clear that this
patch was fixing some released code and should be considered for -stable

Reviewed-by: Guillaume Nault <>
Tested-by: Guillaume Nault <>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-24 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20180523032958.GE658@sol.localdomain>
2018-05-23  3:59 ` [PATCH] ppp: remove the PPPIOCDETACH ioctl Eric Biggers
2018-05-23 13:57   ` Guillaume Nault
2018-05-23 15:56     ` David Miller
2018-05-23 21:17       ` Eric Biggers
2018-05-23 21:37   ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Biggers
2018-05-23 23:04     ` Paul Mackerras
2018-05-24 14:04     ` Guillaume Nault [this message]
2018-05-25  2:55     ` David Miller
2018-06-06  9:01     ` Walter Harms

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).