linux-kernel - Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly") causes bind port regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 20:11:09 +0000
From:   Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
To:     Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
CC:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cole Robinson <crobinso@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly") causes
 bind port regression


> On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:28:25 +0000
> Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry I thought I had made this other fix, can you apply this on top
>> of the other one and try that?  I have more things to try if this
>> doesn’t work, sorry you are playing go between, but I want to make
>> sure I know _which_ fix actually fixes the problem, and then clean up
>> in followup patches.  Thanks,
>> 
>> Josef
>> 
>> On 9/13/17, 8:45 AM, "Laura Abbott" <labbott@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 09/12/2017 04:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> First I’m super sorry for the top post, I’m at plumbers and I
>>> forgot to upload my muttrc to my new cloud instance, so I’m screwed
>>> using outlook.
>>> 
>>> I have a completely untested, uncompiled patch that I think will
>>> fix the problem, would you mind giving it a go?  Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Josef  
>> 
>> Thanks for the quick turnaround. Unfortunately, the problem is still
>> reproducible according to the reporter.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Laura
> 
> I am confused by the patch that originally caused this:
> 
>        if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
>                return ipv6_rcv_saddr_equal(&sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
> -                                           &sk2->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
> +                                           inet6_rcv_saddr(sk2),
>                                            sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
>                                            sk2->sk_rcv_saddr,
> 
> Shouldn't the first argument also be changed to use inet6_rcv_saddr()?

No we know sk is IPv6 so it's alright to use directly.  Thanks,

Josef