Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix null-ptr-deref in proto update

From: Martin KaFai Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:29:44 -0800

On 1/30/26 3:00 AM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>> Follow-up to discussion at
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email-masked]/.
>>
>> It is a long thread to dig. Please summarize the discussion in the
>> commit message.
> 
> OK, there we go:
> 
> The root cause of the null-ptr-deref is that unix_stream_connect() sets
> sk_state (`WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_state, TCP_ESTABLISHED)`) _before_ it assigns
> a peer (`unix_peer(sk) = newsk`). sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED makes
> sock_map_sk_state_allowed() believe that socket is properly set up, which
> would include having a defined peer.
> 
> In other words, there's a window when you can call
> unix_stream_bpf_update_proto() on socket which still has unix_peer(sk) == NULL.
> 
> My initial idea was to simply move peer assignment _before_ the sk_state
> update, but the maintainer wasn't interested in changing the
> unix_stream_connect() hot path. He suggested taking care of it in the
> sockmap code.
> 
> My understanding is that users are not supposed to put sockets in a sockmap
> when said socket is only half-way through connect() call. Hence `return
> -EINVAL` on a missing peer. Now, if users should be allowed to legally race
> connect() vs. sockmap update, then I guess we can wait for connect() to
> "finalize" e.g. by taking the unix_state_lock(), as discussed below.
> 
>>   From looking at this commit message, if the existing lock_sock held by
>> update_elem is not useful for af_unix,
> 
> Right, the existing lock_sock is not useful. update's lock_sock holds
> sock::sk_lock, while unix_state_lock() holds unix_sock::lock.

It sounds like lock_sock is the incorrect lock to hold for af_unix. Is 
taking lock_sock in sock_map doing anything useful for af_unix? Should 
sock_map hold the unix_state_lock instead of lock_sock?

Other than update_elem, do other lock_sock() usages in sock_map have a 
similar issue for af_unix?

> 
>> it is not clear why a new test
>> "!sk_pair" on top of the existing WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_state...) is a fix.
> 
> "On top"? Just to make sure we're looking at the same thing: above I was
> trying to show two parallel flows with unix_peer() fetch in thread-0 and
> WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_state...) and `unix_peer(sk) = newsk` in thread-1.
> 
> It fixes the problem because now update_proto won't call sock_hold(NULL).
> 
>> A minor thing is sock_map_sk_state_allowed doesn't have
>> READ_ONCE(sk->sk_state) for sk_is_stream_unix also.
> 
> Ok, I'll add this as a separate patch in v2. Along with the !tcp case of
> sock_map_redirect_allowed()?

sgtm. thanks.

> 
>> If unix_stream_connect does not hold lock_sock, can unix_state_lock be
>> used here? lock_sock has already been taken, update_elem should not be
>> the hot path.
> 
> Yes, it can be used, it was proposed in the old thread. In fact, critical
> section can be empty; only used to wait for unix_stream_connect() to
> release the lock, which would guarantee unix_peer(sk) != NULL by then.
> 
>          if (!psock->sk_pair) {
> +               unix_state_lock(sk);
> +               unix_state_unlock(sk);
>                  sk_pair = unix_peer(sk);
>                  sock_hold(sk_pair);

I don't have a strong opinion on waiting or checking NULL. imo, both are 
not easy to understand. One is sk_state had already been checked earlier 
under a lock_sock but still needs to check NULL on unix_peer(). Another 
one is an empty unix_state_[un]lock(). If taking unix_state_lock, may as 
well just use the existing unix_peer_get(sk). If its return value cannot 
(?) be NULL, WARN_ON_ONCE() instead of having a special empty 
lock/unlock pattern here. If the correct lock (unix_state_lock) was held 
earlier in update_elem, all these would go away.

Also, it is not immediately clear why a non-NULL unix_peer(sk) is safe 
here. From looking around af_unix.c, is it because the sk refcnt is held 
earlier in update_elem? For unix_stream, unix_peer(sk) will stay valid 
until unix_release_sock(sk). Am I reading it correctly?