[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201015141012.GB77038@Thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 19:40:12 +0530
From: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: ralf@...ux-mips.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] net: rose: Fix Null pointer
dereference in rose_send_frame()
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote:
> > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to
> > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and
> > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is
> > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'.
> >
> > - net/rose/rose_link.c
> > This bug seems to get triggered in this line:
> >
> > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
> >
> > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for
> > rose_call initialization.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3
> > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@...il.com>
> > ---
> > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is
> > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'.
> >
> > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644
> > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > ax25_address *rose_call;
> > ax25_cb *ax25s;
> >
> > + if (!neigh->dev)
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be
> fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Hello Sir,
Thanks for the review,
After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should
be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer,
and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started.
Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign
, please give your suggestions on this.
diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644
--- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
+++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
@@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh)
ax25_address *rose_call;
ax25_cb *ax25s;
- if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0)
- rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
- else
- rose_call = &rose_callsign;
+ if (neigh->dev) {
+ if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0)
+ rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
+ else
+ rose_call = &rose_callsign;
+ } else {
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
ax25s = neigh->ax25;
neigh->ax25 = ax25_send_frame(skb, 260, rose_call, &neigh->callsign, neigh->digipeat, neigh->dev);
Thanks,
Anmol
Powered by blists - more mailing lists