linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 14/47] tcp: Protect accesses to .ts_recent_stamp with {READ,WRITE}

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]

Message-Id: <20191219182912.205576955@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:34:28 +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, Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 14/47] tcp: Protect accesses to .ts_recent_stamp with {READ,WRITE}_ONCE()

From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>

[ Upstream commit 721c8dafad26ccfa90ff659ee19755e3377b829d ]

Syncookies borrow the ->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp field to store the
timestamp of the last synflood. Protect them with READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() since reads and writes aren't serialised.

Use of .rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp for storing the synflood timestamp was
introduced by a0f82f64e269 ("syncookies: remove last_synq_overflow from
struct tcp_sock"). But unprotected accesses were already there when
timestamp was stored in .last_synq_overflow.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 include/net/tcp.h |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/include/net/tcp.h
+++ b/include/net/tcp.h
@@ -492,9 +492,9 @@ static inline void tcp_synq_overflow(con
 		}
 	}
 
-	last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
+	last_overflow = READ_ONCE(tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp);
 	if (!time_between32(now, last_overflow, last_overflow + HZ))
-		tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp = now;
+		WRITE_ONCE(tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp, now);
 }
 
 /* syncookies: no recent synqueue overflow on this listening socket? */
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static inline bool tcp_synq_no_recent_ov
 		}
 	}
 
-	last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
+	last_overflow = READ_ONCE(tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp);
 
 	/* If last_overflow <= jiffies <= last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID,
 	 * then we're under synflood. However, we have to use