netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/2] Fixes for raw diag sockets handling

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, 2 Nov 2016 09:10:32 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/2] Fixes for raw diag sockets handling

On 11/2/16 6:36 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Also I have a question about sockets lookup not for raw diag only
> (though I didn't modify lookup procedure) but in general: the structure
> inet_diag_req_v2 has inet_diag_sockid::idiag_if member which supposed to
> carry interface index from userspace request.
> 
> Then for example in INET_MATCH (include/net/inet_hashtables.h),
> the __dif parameter (which is @idiag_if) compared with @sk_bound_dev_if
> *iif* the sk_bound_dev_if has been ever set. Thus if say someone
> looks up for paticular device with specified index if the
> rest of parameters match and SO_BINDTODEVICE never been called
> for this device we return the socket even if idiag_if is not zero.
> Is it supposed to be so? Or I miss something obvious?
> 
> I mean this snippet
> 
> 
> 	 (!(__sk)->sk_bound_dev_if	||				\
> 	   ((__sk)->sk_bound_dev_if == (__dif))) 	&&		\
> 
> when someone calls for destory sockets on particular interface and
> @__dif != 0 the match may return socket where sk_bound_dev_if = 0
> instead of completely matching one. Isn't it?

yes. I recently added an exact_dif to the lookup for listener sockets (see compute_score). Something like that could be added to INET_MATCH.