netdev - Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add a check for gss_release

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:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:15:23 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add a check for gss_release_msg

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 07:16:56PM -0500, Aditya Pakki wrote:
> In gss_pipe_destroy_msg(), in case of error in msg, gss_release_msg
> deletes gss_msg. The patch adds a check to avoid a potential double
> free.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> index 5f42aa5fc612..eb52eebb3923 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> @@ -848,7 +848,8 @@ gss_pipe_destroy_msg(struct rpc_pipe_msg *msg)
>  			warn_gssd();
>  		gss_release_msg(gss_msg);
>  	}
> -	gss_release_msg(gss_msg);
> +	if (gss_msg)
> +		gss_release_msg(gss_msg);a

If you look at the code, this is impossible to have happen.

Please stop submitting known-invalid patches.  Your professor is playing
around with the review process in order to achieve a paper in some
strange and bizarre way.

This is not ok, it is wasting our time, and we will have to report this,
AGAIN, to your university...

greg k-h