netdev - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:08:38 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     jmaloy@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 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, maloy@...jonn.com, xinl@...hat.com,
        ying.xue@...driver.com, parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [v2,net] tipc: fix wrong notification node addresses

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:00:09PM -0500, jmaloy@...hat.com wrote:
> 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")
> 

Please don't put blank lines between Fixes and SOB lines.

Thanks

> 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
>