netdev - Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly") causes bind port regression

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: <20170913154750.100881c0@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:47:50 -0400
From:   Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
To:     Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cole Robinson <crobinso@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly")
 causes bind port regression

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:28:25 +0000
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> wrote:

> Sorry I thought I had made this other fix, can you apply this on top
> of the other one and try that?  I have more things to try if this
> doesn’t work, sorry you are playing go between, but I want to make
> sure I know _which_ fix actually fixes the problem, and then clean up
> in followup patches.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef
> 
> On 9/13/17, 8:45 AM, "Laura Abbott" <labbott@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 09/12/2017 04:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > First I’m super sorry for the top post, I’m at plumbers and I
> > forgot to upload my muttrc to my new cloud instance, so I’m screwed
> > using outlook.
> > 
> > I have a completely untested, uncompiled patch that I think will
> > fix the problem, would you mind giving it a go?  Thanks,
> > 
> > Josef  
> 
> Thanks for the quick turnaround. Unfortunately, the problem is still
> reproducible according to the reporter.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laura

I am confused by the patch that originally caused this:

        if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
                return ipv6_rcv_saddr_equal(&sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
-                                           &sk2->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
+                                           inet6_rcv_saddr(sk2),
                                            sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
                                            sk2->sk_rcv_saddr,

Shouldn't the first argument also be changed to use inet6_rcv_saddr()?