[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190225195044.295934965@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:10:01 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 009/152] libceph: handle an empty authorize reply
4.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
commit 0fd3fd0a9bb0b02b6435bb7070e9f7b82a23f068 upstream.
The authorize reply can be empty, for example when the ticket used to
build the authorizer is too old and TAG_BADAUTHORIZER is returned from
the service. Calling ->verify_authorizer_reply() results in an attempt
to decrypt and validate (somewhat) random data in au->buf (most likely
the signature block from calc_signature()), which fails and ends up in
con_fault_finish() with !con->auth_retry. The ticket isn't invalidated
and the connection is retried again and again until a new ticket is
obtained from the monitor:
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
Let TAG_BADAUTHORIZER handler kick in and increment con->auth_retry.
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: 5c056fdc5b47 ("libceph: verify authorize reply on connect")
Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20164
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
net/ceph/messenger.c | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/net/ceph/messenger.c
+++ b/net/ceph/messenger.c
@@ -2091,6 +2091,8 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_c
dout("process_connect on %p tag %d\n", con, (int)con->in_tag);
if (con->auth) {
+ int len = le32_to_cpu(con->in_reply.authorizer_len);
+
/*
* Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer()
* should also define ->add_authorizer_challenge() and
@@ -2100,8 +2102,7 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_c
*/
if (con->in_reply.tag == CEPH_MSGR_TAG_CHALLENGE_AUTHORIZER) {
ret = con->ops->add_authorizer_challenge(
- con, con->auth->authorizer_reply_buf,
- le32_to_cpu(con->in_reply.authorizer_len));
+ con, con->auth->authorizer_reply_buf, len);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -2111,10 +2112,12 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_c
return 0;
}
- ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con);
- if (ret < 0) {
- con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply";
- return ret;
+ if (len) {
+ ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply";
+ return ret;
+ }
}
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists