netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/3] sctp: return back transport in __sctp_rcv_init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:29:07 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] sctp: return back transport in __sctp_rcv_init_lookup

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 05:42:21PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:10:53PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>> > Prior to this patch, it used a local variable to save the transport that is
>> > looked up by __sctp_lookup_association(), and didn't return it back. But in
>> > sctp_rcv, it is used to initialize chunk->transport. So when hitting this
>> > code, it was initializing chunk->transport with some random stack value
>> > instead.
here should be:
So when hitting this, even if it found the transport, it was still initializing
chunk->transport with null instead.

>> >
>> > This patch is to return the transport back through transport pointer
>> > that is from __sctp_rcv_lookup_harder().
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
>>
>> transport pointer in sctp_rcv() is initialized to null and there are
>> checks for it after this path, so this shouldn't be exploitable, just
>> malfunction.
>
> This actually sort of contradicts the changelog.
>
> Xin, did I miss something here? Seems we need to update the changelog if
> not.
>
You're right, thanks, will repost.