netdev - [v2,net] tipc: fix wrong notification node addresses

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220216020009.3404578-1-jmaloy@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:00:09 -0500
From:   jmaloy@...hat.com
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        tung.q.nguyen@...tech.com.au, hoang.h.le@...tech.com.au,
        tuong.t.lien@...tech.com.au, jmaloy@...hat.com, maloy@...jonn.com,
        xinl@...hat.com, ying.xue@...driver.com,
        parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...il.com
Subject: [v2,net] tipc: fix wrong notification node addresses

From: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>

The previous bug fix had an unfortunate side effect that broke
distribution of binding table entries between nodes. The updated
tipc_sock_addr struct is also used further down in the same
function, and there the old value is still the correct one.

We fix this now.

Fixes: 032062f363b4 ("tipc: fix wrong publisher node address in link publications")

Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>

---
v2: Copied n->addr to stack variable before leaving lock context, and
    using this in the notifications.
---
 net/tipc/node.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
index fd95df338da7..6ef95ce565bd 100644
--- a/net/tipc/node.c
+++ b/net/tipc/node.c
@@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static void tipc_node_write_unlock(struct tipc_node *n)
 	u32 flags = n->action_flags;
 	struct list_head *publ_list;
 	struct tipc_uaddr ua;
-	u32 bearer_id;
+	u32 bearer_id, node;
 
 	if (likely(!flags)) {
 		write_unlock_bh(&n->lock);
@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static void tipc_node_write_unlock(struct tipc_node *n)
 		   TIPC_LINK_STATE, n->addr, n->addr);
 	sk.ref = n->link_id;
 	sk.node = tipc_own_addr(net);
+	node = n->addr;
 	bearer_id = n->link_id & 0xffff;
 	publ_list = &n->publ_list;
 
@@ -423,17 +424,17 @@ static void tipc_node_write_unlock(struct tipc_node *n)
 	write_unlock_bh(&n->lock);
 
 	if (flags & TIPC_NOTIFY_NODE_DOWN)
-		tipc_publ_notify(net, publ_list, sk.node, n->capabilities);
+		tipc_publ_notify(net, publ_list, node, n->capabilities);
 
 	if (flags & TIPC_NOTIFY_NODE_UP)
-		tipc_named_node_up(net, sk.node, n->capabilities);
+		tipc_named_node_up(net, node, n->capabilities);
 
 	if (flags & TIPC_NOTIFY_LINK_UP) {
-		tipc_mon_peer_up(net, sk.node, bearer_id);
+		tipc_mon_peer_up(net, node, bearer_id);
 		tipc_nametbl_publish(net, &ua, &sk, sk.ref);
 	}
 	if (flags & TIPC_NOTIFY_LINK_DOWN) {
-		tipc_mon_peer_down(net, sk.node, bearer_id);
+		tipc_mon_peer_down(net, node, bearer_id);
 		tipc_nametbl_withdraw(net, &ua, &sk, sk.ref);
 	}
 }
-- 
2.31.1