netdev - Re: [Patch net] ppp: defer netns reference release for ppp channel

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:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:26:02 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Matt.Bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
	Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] ppp: defer netns reference release for ppp channel

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:12:36PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Matt reported that we have a NULL pointer dereference
> in ppp_pernet() from ppp_connect_channel(),
> i.e. pch->chan_net is NULL.
> 
> This is due to that a parallel ppp_unregister_channel()
> could happen while we are in ppp_connect_channel(), during
> which pch->chan_net set to NULL. Since we need a reference
> to net per channel, it makes sense to sync the refcnt
> with the life time of the channel, therefore we should
> release this reference when we destroy it.
> 
> Fixes: 1f461dcdd296 ("ppp: take reference on channels netns")
> Reported-by: Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
> Cc: linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> ---

Hi Cong! I may be wrong, but this doesn't look right in general.
We take the net in ppp_register_channel->ppp_register_net_channel
and (name) context implies that ppp_unregister_channel does
the reverse. Maybe there some sync point missed? I'll review
in detail a bit later.