netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bail on sock_wfree, sock_rfree when we have a TCP

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: <20150701.141402.587634025761326092.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	agartrell@...com
Cc:	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bail on sock_wfree, sock_rfree when we
 have a TCP_TIMEWAIT sk

From: Alex Gartrell <agartrell@...com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:13:09 -0700

> If we early-demux bind a TCP_TIMEWAIT socket to an skb and then orphan it
> (as we need to do in the ipvs forwarding case), sock_wfree and sock_rfree
> are going to reach into the inet_timewait_sock and mess with fields that
> don't exist.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Gartrell <agartrell@...com>

If we're forwarding, we should not find a local socket, period.

We should only match sockets for locally destined packets.

So I'd say that the state in which you say this can occur is illegal.
--
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