linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: bridge: check for a null p->dev before dereferencing it

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:   Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:04:02 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:     colin.king@...onical.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bridge: check for a null p->dev before
 dereferencing it

From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:21:07 +0200

> I was contacted recently about this privately and this was my reply:
> "Checking new_nbp() and del_nbp() it should not be possible to reach that code
> with p->dev or p->br as NULL. The cap check code has always been there, I just
> shuffled the rest of the function to obtain rtnl lock and kept it as close to
> the original as possible, thus the checks remained.
> In order to avoid future reports like this I'll send a cleanup once net-next
> opens up.
> 
> My reasoning of why it shouldn't be possible:
> - On port add new_nbp() sets both p->dev and p->br before creating kobj/sysfs
> 
> - On port del (trickier) del_nbp() calls kobject_del() before call_rcu() to destroy
>   the port which in turn calls sysfs_remove_dir() which uses kernfs_remove() which
>   deactivates (shouldn't be able to open new files) and calls kernfs_drain() to drain
>   current open/mmaped files in the respective dir before continuing, thus making it
>   impossible to open a bridge port sysfs file with p->dev and p->br equal to NULL.
> "
> 
> So I think it's safe to remove those checks altogether. It'd be nice to get a second
> look over my reasoning as I might be missing something in sysfs/kernfs call path.

I did a once over your analysis and I agree, the checks should be safe to remove.