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  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:	Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:37:08 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspicious rcu_dereference_check in sctp_v6_get_dst

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 05:13:06PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
 
 > > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > > index acb45b8c2a9d..7081183f4d9f 100644
 > > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > > @@ -328,7 +328,9 @@ static void sctp_v6_get_dst(struct sctp_transport *t, union sctp_addr *saddr,
 > >  	if (baddr) {
 > >  		fl6->saddr = baddr->v6.sin6_addr;
 > >  		fl6->fl6_sport = baddr->v6.sin6_port;
 > > +		rcu_read_lock();
 > >  		final_p = fl6_update_dst(fl6, rcu_dereference(np->opt), &final);
 > > +		rcu_read_unlock();
 > >  		dst = ip6_dst_lookup_flow(sk, fl6, final_p);
 > >  	}
 > >  
 > 
 > Hmm, better use :
 > 
 > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > index acb45b8c2a9d..d28c0b4c9128 100644
 > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
 > @@ -323,14 +323,13 @@ static void sctp_v6_get_dst(struct sctp_transport *t, union sctp_addr *saddr,
 >  			}
 >  		}
 >  	}
 > -	rcu_read_unlock();
 > -
 >  	if (baddr) {
 >  		fl6->saddr = baddr->v6.sin6_addr;
 >  		fl6->fl6_sport = baddr->v6.sin6_port;
 >  		final_p = fl6_update_dst(fl6, rcu_dereference(np->opt), &final);
 >  		dst = ip6_dst_lookup_flow(sk, fl6, final_p);
 >  	}
 > +	rcu_read_unlock();
 >  
 >  out:
 >  	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dst)) {

I looked at that option first, but decided to mirror the other use of fl6_update_dst.

It looks like your solution would work too, so I'm not against it, but..
For my own understanding, why is this better? Just to cut down on the
number of repeated lock/unlocks in the same function?  Or is there some
semantic I'm missing in the earlier lock/unlock section that's somehow
related to the np->opt ?

thanks,

	Dave

--
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