[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a20d6c2f-f64f-b432-f214-c1f2b64fdf81@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:50:38 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
Cc: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels@...il.com>,
Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...roma2.it>,
Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: fix NULL pointer dereference in ip6_output()
On 12/7/21 5:21 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
>
> When an IPv4 packet is received, the ip_rcv_core(...) sets the receiving
> interface index into the IPv4 socket control block (v5.16-rc4,
> net/ipv4/ip_input.c line 510):
> IPCB(skb)->iif = skb->skb_iif;
>
> If that IPv4 packet is meant to be encapsulated in an outer IPv6+SRH header,
> the seg6_do_srh_encap(...) performs the required encapsulation.
> In this case, the seg6_do_srh_encap function clears the IPv6 socket control
> block (v5.16-rc4 net/ipv6/seg6_iptunnel.c line 163):
> memset(IP6CB(skb), 0, sizeof(*IP6CB(skb)));
>
> The memset(...) was introduced in commit ef489749aae5 ("ipv6: sr: clear
> IP6CB(skb) on SRH ip4ip6 encapsulation") a long time ago (2019-01-29).
>
> Since the IPv6 socket control block and the IPv4 socket control block share the
> same memory area (skb->cb), the receiving interface index info is lost
> (IP6CB(skb)->iif is set to zero).
>
> As a side effect, that condition triggers a NULL pointer dereference if patch
> 0857d6f8c759 ("ipv6: When forwarding count rx stats on the orig netdev") is
> applied.
>
> To fix that, I can send a patch where we set the IP6CB(skb)->iif to the
> index of the receiving interface, i.e.:
>
> int seg6_do_srh_encap(struct sk_buff *skb, struct ipv6_sr_hdr *osrh, int proto)
> [...]
> ip6_flow_hdr(hdr, 0, flowlabel);
> hdr->hop_limit = ip6_dst_hoplimit(skb_dst(skb));
>
> memset(IP6CB(skb), 0, sizeof(*IP6CB(skb)));
> + IP6CB(skb)->iif = skb->skb_iif;
> [...]
>
> What do you think?
>
I like that approach over the need for a fall back in core ipv6 code.
Make sure the above analysis is in the commit message. Thanks for the
quick response,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists