linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.16 038/164] mptcp: fix race in incoming ADD

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220228172403.732021961@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:23:20 +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,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 5.16 038/164] mptcp: fix race in incoming ADD_ADDR option processing

From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>

commit 837cf45df163a3780bc04b555700231e95b31dc9 upstream.

If an MPTCP endpoint received multiple consecutive incoming
ADD_ADDR options, mptcp_pm_add_addr_received() can overwrite
the current remote address value after the PM lock is released
in mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_received() and before such address
is echoed.

Fix the issue caching the remote address value a little earlier
and always using the cached value after releasing the PM lock.

Fixes: f7efc7771eac ("mptcp: drop argument port from mptcp_pm_announce_addr")
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c |   19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
@@ -606,6 +606,7 @@ static void mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_receive
 	unsigned int add_addr_accept_max;
 	struct mptcp_addr_info remote;
 	unsigned int subflows_max;
+	bool reset_port = false;
 	int i, nr;
 
 	add_addr_accept_max = mptcp_pm_get_add_addr_accept_max(msk);
@@ -615,15 +616,19 @@ static void mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_receive
 		 msk->pm.add_addr_accepted, add_addr_accept_max,
 		 msk->pm.remote.family);
 
-	if (lookup_subflow_by_daddr(&msk->conn_list, &msk->pm.remote))
+	remote = msk->pm.remote;
+	if (lookup_subflow_by_daddr(&msk->conn_list, &remote))
 		goto add_addr_echo;
 
+	/* pick id 0 port, if none is provided the remote address */
+	if (!remote.port) {
+		reset_port = true;
+		remote.port = sk->sk_dport;
+	}
+
 	/* connect to the specified remote address, using whatever
 	 * local address the routing configuration will pick.
 	 */
-	remote = msk->pm.remote;
-	if (!remote.port)
-		remote.port = sk->sk_dport;
 	nr = fill_local_addresses_vec(msk, addrs);
 
 	msk->pm.add_addr_accepted++;
@@ -636,8 +641,12 @@ static void mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_receive
 		__mptcp_subflow_connect(sk, &addrs[i], &remote);
 	spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock);
 
+	/* be sure to echo exactly the received address */
+	if (reset_port)
+		remote.port = 0;
+
 add_addr_echo:
-	mptcp_pm_announce_addr(msk, &msk->pm.remote, true);
+	mptcp_pm_announce_addr(msk, &remote, true);
 	mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack(msk);
 }