[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54320213-5b9b-4648-fa6b-553d2acb298e@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:00:39 -0400
From: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Hoang Huu Le <hoang.h.le@...tech.com.au>
Cc: maloy@...jonn.com, ying.xue@...driver.com,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net] tipc: fix NULL pointer dereference in tipc_named_rcv
On 10/8/20 1:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:31:56 +0700 Hoang Huu Le wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/tipc/name_distr.c b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> index 2f9c148f17e2..fe4edce459ad 100644
>> --- a/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> +++ b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> @@ -327,8 +327,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>> struct tipc_msg *hdr;
>> u16 seqno;
>>
>> + spin_lock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>> skb_queue_walk_safe(namedq, skb, tmp) {
>> - skb_linearize(skb);
>> + if (unlikely(skb_linearize(skb))) {
>> + __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> + kfree_skb(skb);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> hdr = buf_msg(skb);
>> seqno = msg_named_seqno(hdr);
>> if (msg_is_last_bulk(hdr)) {
>> @@ -338,12 +343,14 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>>
>> if (msg_is_bulk(hdr) || msg_is_legacy(hdr)) {
>> __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>> return skb;
>> }
>>
>> if (*open && (*rcv_nxt == seqno)) {
>> (*rcv_nxt)++;
>> __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>> return skb;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -353,6 +360,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>> continue;
>> }
>> }
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
>> index cf4b239fc569..d269ebe382e1 100644
>> --- a/net/tipc/node.c
>> +++ b/net/tipc/node.c
>> @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ static void node_lost_contact(struct tipc_node *n,
>>
>> /* Clean up broadcast state */
>> tipc_bcast_remove_peer(n->net, n->bc_entry.link);
>> - __skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
>> + skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
> Patch looks fine, but I'm not sure why not hold
> spin_unlock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock) here instead?
>
> Seems like node_lost_contact() should be relatively rare,
> so adding another lock to tipc_named_dequeue() is not the
> right trade off.
Actually, I agree with previous speaker here. We already have the
nametbl_lock when tipc_named_dequeue() is called, and the same lock is
accessible from no.c where node_lost_contact() is executed. The patch
and the code becomes simpler.
I suggest you post a v2 of this one.
///jon
>> /* Abort any ongoing link failover */
>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_BEARERS; i++) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists