[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B42ED9C.6070304@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:43:24 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
CC: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: off by one in update_nl_seq()
Dan Carpenter wrote:
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ftp.c
> 321 /* We don't update if it's older than what we have. */
> 322 static void update_nl_seq(struct nf_conn *ct, u32 nl_seq,
> 323 struct nf_ct_ftp_master *info, int dir,
> 324 struct sk_buff *skb)
> 325 {
> 326 unsigned int i, oldest = NUM_SEQ_TO_REMEMBER;
>
> Should this be oldest = NUM_SEQ_TO_REMEMBER - 1;? The array is
> defined as:
> u_int32_t seq_aft_nl[IP_CT_DIR_MAX][NUM_SEQ_TO_REMEMBER];
That would break the logic further down below.
> 327
> 328 /* Look for oldest: if we find exact match, we're done. */
> 329 for (i = 0; i < info->seq_aft_nl_num[dir]; i++) {
> 330 if (info->seq_aft_nl[dir][i] == nl_seq)
> 331 return;
> 332
> 333 if (oldest == info->seq_aft_nl_num[dir] ||
> 334 before(info->seq_aft_nl[dir][i],
> 335 info->seq_aft_nl[dir][oldest]))
>
> Line 335 has the possible array out of bounds I am concerned about.
Good catch, this is definitely a bug. The entire function seems
overly complicated to select one of two possible positions. I'll
commit the attached patch to fix this after some testing.
View attachment "x" of type "text/plain" (1236 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists