netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: check for null sk before deferencing it via the call to sock

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:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:32:25 +0200
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: check for null sk before deferencing it via the call
 to sock_net

On 10/16/2017 06:37 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/08/2017 05:02 PM, Colin King wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>
>>> The assignment of net via call sock_net will dereference sk. This
>>> is performed before a sanity null check on sk, so there could be
>>> a potential null dereference on the sock_net call if sk is null.
>>> Fix this by assigning net after the sk null check. Also replace
>>> the sk == NULL with the more usual !sk idiom.
>>>
>>> Detected by CoverityScan CID#1431862 ("Dereference before null check")
>>>
>>> Fixes: 384317ef4187 ("can: network namespace support for CAN_BCM
>>> protocol")
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>>
>> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> 
> I don't see this one queued up in the net or net-next trees.  Did it
> fall through the cracks or did it get queued up elsewhere?  Seems like
> it's a good candidate to get into 4.14?

It definitely is!

Marc is our responsible guy for CAN related upstreams - but he seems to 
be busy as I already poked him here:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=150771819505097&w=2

If he doesn't send a pull request by beginning of next week, I would ask 
Dave to grab these patches - to get them into 4.14.

Best regards,
Oliver