[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVyJDeScQDL6vHNAN9gu5a3c0forQ2Ko7eQihawRO_Sdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:37:21 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: sched: fix possible crash in tcf_action_destroy()
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:57 PM 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller
<syzkaller@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> If the allocation done in tcf_exts_init() failed,
> we end up with a NULL pointer in exts->actions.
...
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
> index efd3cfb80a2ad775dc8ab3c4900bd73d52c7aaad..9aef93300f1c11791acbb9262dfe77996872eafe 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
> @@ -3027,8 +3027,10 @@ static int tc_dump_chain(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb)
> void tcf_exts_destroy(struct tcf_exts *exts)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
> - tcf_action_destroy(exts->actions, TCA_ACT_UNBIND);
> - kfree(exts->actions);
> + if (exts->actions) {
I think it is _slightly_ better to check exts->nr_actions!=0 here,
as it would help exts->actions!=NULL&& exts->nr_actions==0
cases too.
What do you think?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists