netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Fix IP_MULTICAST

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: <4ADD3794.8030906@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:07:48 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix IP_MULTICAST_IF

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:41:58 +0200
> 
>> ipv4/ipv6 setsockopt(IP_MULTICAST_IF) have dubious __dev_get_by_index() calls.
> 
> Dubious, how so?
> 
> Yes, I know RTNL/dev_base_lock, but it's not using what it gets
> back at all.
> 
> It's testing existence, a boolean, it doesn't dereference the
> 'dev' it gets back at all.
> 
> This code is intentional and perfectly fine.

If this was intentional, something changed and made the prereq false.

Final target might be fine, but an element in the chain, before target
could be deleted while reader scans hash chain.

/* Device list removal */
static void unlist_netdevice(struct net_device *dev)
{
        ASSERT_RTNL();

        /* Unlink dev from the device chain */
        write_lock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
        list_del(&dev->dev_list);
        hlist_del(&dev->name_hlist);
        hlist_del(&dev->index_hlist);   <<< HERE >>>
        write_unlock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
}


static inline void hlist_del(struct hlist_node *n)
{
        __hlist_del(n);
        n->next = LIST_POISON1;   <<< HERE >>>
        n->pprev = LIST_POISON2;
}
include/linux/poison.h:#define LIST_POISON1  ((void *) 0x00100100)

reader tries to pass over this delete net_device, doing a dev->index_hlist->next

#define hlist_for_each(pos, head) \
        for (pos = (head)->first; pos && ({ prefetch(pos->next); 1; }); \
             pos = pos->next)

So it should visit a nice memory location ?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html