netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] fix NULL pointer dereference in br_handle

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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:11:52 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hong Zhiguo <honkiko@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, zhiguohong@...cent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] fix NULL pointer dereference in br_handle_frame

On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 20:16 +0800, Hong Zhiguo wrote:
> From: Hong Zhiguo <zhiguohong@...cent.com>
> 
> In function netdev_rx_handler_unregister it's said that:
> 
> /* a reader seeing a non NULL rx_handler in a rcu_read_lock()
>  * section has a guarantee to see a non NULL rx_handler_data
>  * as well.
>  */
> 
> This is true. But br_port_get_rcu(dev) returns NULL if:
> 	!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_BRIDGE_PORT)
> 
> And this happended on my box when br_handle_frame is called
> between these 2 lines of del_nbp:
> 
> 	dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_BRIDGE_PORT;
> 	/* --> br_handle_frame is called at this time */
> 	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(dev, br->dev);
> 
> I got below Oops(some lines omitted):
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000021
> IP: [<ffffffff8150901d>] br_handle_frame+0xed/0x230
> Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8150901d>]  [<ffffffff8150901d>] br_handle_frame+0xed/0x230
> RSP: 0018:ffff880030403c10  EFLAGS: 00010286
> Stack:
>  ffff88002c945700 ffffffff81508f30 0000000000000000 ffff88002d41e000
>  ffff880030403c98 ffffffff81477acb ffffffff81477821 ffff880030403c68
>  ffffffff81090e10 00ff88002d545c80 ffff88002c945700 ffffffff81aa50c0
> Call Trace:
>  <IRQ>
>  [<ffffffff81508f30>] ? br_handle_frame_finish+0x300/0x300
>  [<ffffffff81477acb>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x39b/0x880
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hong Zhiguo <zhiguohong@...cent.com>
> ---
>  net/bridge/br_if.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> index c41d5fb..bd21159 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ static void del_nbp(struct net_bridge_port *p)
>  
>  	sysfs_remove_link(br->ifobj, p->dev->name);
>  
> +	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(dev);
> +
>  	dev_set_promiscuity(dev, -1);
>  
>  	spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
> @@ -148,8 +150,6 @@ static void del_nbp(struct net_bridge_port *p)
>  
>  	dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_BRIDGE_PORT;
>  
> -	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(dev);
> -
>  	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(dev, br->dev);
>  
>  	br_multicast_del_port(p);

Interesting.

Then br_handle_frame() should not even have to check IFF_BRIDGE_PORT
flag.

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_input.c b/net/bridge/br_input.c
index a2fd37e..45b2568 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_input.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_input.c
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ rx_handler_result_t br_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
 	if (!skb)
 		return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
 
-	p = br_port_get_rcu(skb->dev);
+	p = rcu_dereference(skb->dev->rx_handler_data);
 
 	if (unlikely(is_link_local_ether_addr(dest))) {
 		/*


--
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