netdev - Undefined behaviour of connect(fd, NULL, 0);

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100331223637.31f5f6ed@notabene.brown>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:36:37 +1100
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Undefined behaviour of connect(fd, NULL, 0);

Hi Netdev.

We have a customer who was reporting strangely unpredictable behaviour of an
in-house application that used networking.

It called connect on a non-blocking socket and subsequently called
   connect(fd, NULL, 0)

to check if the connection had succeeded.
This would sometime "work" and sometimes close the connection.

Looking at the code (sys_connect, move_addr_to_kernel, inet_stream_connect),
it seems that in this case an uninitialised on-stack address is passed
to inet_stream_connect and it makes a decision based on ->sa_family (which is
uninitialised).

It seems clear that connect(fd, NULL, 0) is the wrong thing to do in this
circumstance, but I think it would be good if it failed consistently rather
than unpredictably.

Would it be appropriate for move_addr_to_kernel to zero out the remainder of
the address?
   memset(kaddr+ulen, 0, MAX_SOCK_ADDR-ulen);
??

Then connect(fd, NULL, 0) would always break the connection.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
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