[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141213045133.GI22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:51:33 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Tarnyagin <dmitry.tarnyagin@...kless.no>
Subject: Re: [WTF?] random test in netlink_sendmsg()
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:25:00AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> msg->msg_iter.type == KVEC_ITER &&
ITER_IOVEC, that is. And that way it even works... Are you OK with the
commit below?
netlink: make the check for "send from tx_ring" deterministic
As it is, zero msg_iovlen means that the first iovec in the kernel
array of iovecs is left uninitialized, so checking if its ->iov_base
is NULL is random. Since the real users of that thing are doing
sendto(fd, NULL, 0, ...), they are getting msg_iovlen = 1 and
msg_iov[0] = {NULL, 0}, which is what this test is trying to catch.
As suggested by davem, let's just check that msg_iovlen was 1 and
msg_iov[0].iov_base was NULL - _that_ is well-defined and it catches
what we want to catch.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
index cc9bcf0..5bcb58c 100644
--- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
+++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
@@ -2304,7 +2304,11 @@ static int netlink_sendmsg(struct kiocb *kiocb, struct socket *sock,
goto out;
}
+ /* It's a really convoluted way for userland to ask for mmaped
+ * sendmsg(), but that's what we've got... */
if (netlink_tx_is_mmaped(sk) &&
+ msg->msg_iter.type == ITER_IOVEC &&
+ msg->msg_iter.nr_segs == 1 &&
msg->msg_iter.iov->iov_base == NULL) {
err = netlink_mmap_sendmsg(sk, msg, dst_portid, dst_group,
siocb);
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists