netdev - Re: [PATCH net] mac80211: mesh: fix mesh_pathtbl

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 04 Dec 2020 17:26:27 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] mac80211: mesh: fix mesh_pathtbl_init() error path

On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 08:24 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> 
> If tbl_mpp can not be allocated, we call mesh_table_free(tbl_path)
> while tbl_path rhashtable has not yet been initialized, which causes
> panics.

Thanks Eric!

I was going to ask how you ran into this ...

> Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>

Until I saw this - but doesn't syzbot normally want a
"syzbot+somehashid@..." as the reported-by?


> --- a/net/mac80211/mesh_pathtbl.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/mesh_pathtbl.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ static struct mesh_table *mesh_table_alloc(void)
>  	atomic_set(&newtbl->entries,  0);
>  	spin_lock_init(&newtbl->gates_lock);
>  	spin_lock_init(&newtbl->walk_lock);
> +	rhashtable_init(&newtbl->rhead, &mesh_rht_params);
>  
>  	return newtbl;
>  }
> @@ -773,9 +774,6 @@ int mesh_pathtbl_init(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata)
>  		goto free_path;
>  	}
>  
> -	rhashtable_init(&tbl_path->rhead, &mesh_rht_params);
> -	rhashtable_init(&tbl_mpp->rhead, &mesh_rht_params);
> 

Hmm. There were two calls, now there's only one? Is that a bug, or am I
missing something?

johannes