netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: nfc: llcp: Add lock when modifying device list

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]

Message-ID: <ZP5L6/zF6fE+ogbz@dev>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:06:19 -0400
From: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzbot+c1d0a03d305972dbbe14@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: nfc: llcp: Add lock when modifying device list

On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 05:28:12PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 07:58:53PM -0400, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > The device list needs its associated lock held when modifying it, or the
> > list could become corrupted, as syzbot discovered.
> > 
> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+c1d0a03d305972dbbe14@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c1d0a03d305972dbbe14
> > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> thanks for your patch.
> 
> I don't think you need to resubmit for this,
> I think this patch warrants a fixes tag:
> 
> Fixes: d646960f7986 ("NFC: Initial LLCP support")
> 

My bad, indeed. The lock in question looks to have been added in
6709d4b7bc2e ("net: nfc: Fix use-after-free caused by
nfc_llcp_find_local") which itself includes a couple fix tags, should
this reference that commit instead as it won't backport without that
one?

> Otherwise, this looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> 

Thanks,
Jeremy