netdev - Re: Add missing socket check in can/bcm release.

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, 20 Apr 2011 12:03:50 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Add missing socket check in can/bcm release.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 08:37:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
 > From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
 > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:30:01 -0400
 > 
 > > We can get here with a NULL socket argument passed from userspace,
 > > so we need to handle it accordingly.
 > > 
 > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
 > 
 > Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Dave.

Out of curiousity, while I was asleep it occured to me.. is it ever valid
for a ->release to get passed a NULL socket->sk ?  I'm wondering if we
can't do this check a layer up in sock_release, in case future protocols
reintroduce the same bug.

>From a quick look, almost every protocol has this check in its ->release.
Though it seems some do something different instead of using socket->sk,
so it would be a pointless check for some of the lesser used ones.

thoughts?

	Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html