| Message ID | 20201015001712.72976-1-anmol.karan123@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [Linux-kernel-mentees] net: rose: Fix Null pointer dereference in rose_send_frame() | expand |
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > rose_call initialization. > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > --- > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > ax25_address *rose_call; > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > + if (!neigh->dev) > + return -ENODEV; How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? thanks, greg k-h
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > rose_call initialization. > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > --- > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > + return -ENODEV; > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Hello Sir, Thanks for the review, After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign , please give your suggestions on this. diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) ax25_address *rose_call; ax25_cb *ax25s; - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; - else - rose_call = &rose_callsign; + if (neigh->dev) { + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; + else + rose_call = &rose_callsign; + } else { + return -ENODEV; + } ax25s = neigh->ax25; neigh->ax25 = ax25_send_frame(skb, 260, rose_call, &neigh->callsign, neigh->digipeat, neigh->dev); Thanks, Anmol
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > > rose_call initialization. > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Hello Sir, > > Thanks for the review, > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign > , please give your suggestions on this. > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > ax25_address *rose_call; > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > - else > - rose_call = &rose_callsign; > + if (neigh->dev) { > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > + else > + rose_call = &rose_callsign; > + } else { > + return -ENODEV; > + } The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, checking for it like this will not work. What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check for this properly. thanks, greg k-h
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > > > rose_call initialization. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > Thanks for the review, > > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should > > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, > > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. > > > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign > > , please give your suggestions on this. > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > - else > > - rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > + if (neigh->dev) { > > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > + else > > + rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > + } else { > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, > checking for it like this will not work. > > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check > for this properly. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Sure sir, understood. Thanks, Anmol
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > > > rose_call initialization. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > Thanks for the review, > > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should > > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, > > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. > > > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign > > , please give your suggestions on this. > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > - else > > - rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > + if (neigh->dev) { > > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > + else > > + rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > + } else { > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, > checking for it like this will not work. > > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check > for this properly. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Hello All, I investigated further on this, Here is some things i noticed: When I followed the call trace, [ 84.241331][ C3] Call Trace: [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_transmit_clear_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_link.c:255) [ 84.241331][ C3] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on ($SOURCE/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4161) [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_rx_call_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:999) [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_release ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:970) [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_loopback_timer ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:100) [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_transmit_link ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:60) in the rose_send_frame() it dereferenced `neigh->dev` when called from rose_transmit_clear_request(), and the first occurance of the `neigh` is in rose_loopback_timer() as `rose_loopback_neigh`, and it is initialized in rose_add_loopback_neighh() as NULL. - net/rose/rose_route.c:381 void rose_add_loopback_neigh(void) { struct rose_neigh *sn; rose_loopback_neigh = kmalloc(sizeof(struct rose_neigh), GFP_KERNEL); if (!rose_loopback_neigh) return; sn = rose_loopback_neigh; sn->callsign = null_ax25_address; sn->digipeat = NULL; sn->ax25 = NULL; sn->dev = NULL; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i.e when `rose_loopback_neigh` used in rose_loopback_timer() its `->dev` was still NULL and rose_loopback_timer() was calling rose_rx_call_request() without checking for NULL. I have created the following patch to check for NULL pointer. diff --git a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c index 7b094275ea8b..cd7774cb1d07 100644 --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void rose_loopback_timer(struct timer_list *unused) } if (frametype == ROSE_CALL_REQUEST) { - if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { + if (rose_loopback_neigh->dev && (dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) kfree_skb(skb); } else { Please, review it and give me suggestions whether i am going right or not. Thanks, Anmol
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:24:13PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > > > > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > > > > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > > > > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > > > > rose_call initialization. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > > > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > > > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > > > Thanks for the review, > > > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should > > > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, > > > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. > > > > > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign > > > , please give your suggestions on this. > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > - else > > > - rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > > + if (neigh->dev) { > > > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > + else > > > + rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > > + } else { > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev > > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, > > checking for it like this will not work. > > > > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who > > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check > > for this properly. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Hello All, > > I investigated further on this, > > Here is some things i noticed: > > When I followed the call trace, > > [ 84.241331][ C3] Call Trace: > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_transmit_clear_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_link.c:255) > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on ($SOURCE/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4161) > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_rx_call_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:999) > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_release ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:970) > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_loopback_timer ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:100) > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_transmit_link ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:60) > > in the rose_send_frame() it dereferenced `neigh->dev` when called from > rose_transmit_clear_request(), and the first occurance of the `neigh` > is in rose_loopback_timer() as `rose_loopback_neigh`, and it is initialized > in rose_add_loopback_neighh() as NULL. > > - net/rose/rose_route.c:381 > > void rose_add_loopback_neigh(void) > { > struct rose_neigh *sn; > > rose_loopback_neigh = kmalloc(sizeof(struct rose_neigh), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!rose_loopback_neigh) > return; > sn = rose_loopback_neigh; > > sn->callsign = null_ax25_address; > sn->digipeat = NULL; > sn->ax25 = NULL; > sn->dev = NULL; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > i.e when `rose_loopback_neigh` used in rose_loopback_timer() its `->dev` was > still NULL and rose_loopback_timer() was calling rose_rx_call_request() > without checking for NULL. > > > I have created the following patch to check for NULL pointer. > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > index 7b094275ea8b..cd7774cb1d07 100644 > --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void rose_loopback_timer(struct timer_list *unused) > } > > if (frametype == ROSE_CALL_REQUEST) { > - if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > + if (rose_loopback_neigh->dev && (dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) > kfree_skb(skb); > } else { > > > > Please, review it and give me suggestions whether i am going right or not. That seems better, does it solve the syzbot test? thanks, greg k-h
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 12:02:58PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:24:13PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > > > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to > > > > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and > > > > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is > > > > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. > > > > > > > > > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line: > > > > > > > > > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > > > > > > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for > > > > > > rose_call initialization. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is > > > > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. > > > > > > > > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 > > > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!neigh->dev) > > > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > > > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be > > > > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right? > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review, > > > > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should > > > > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer, > > > > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started. > > > > > > > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign > > > > , please give your suggestions on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644 > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > > > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > ax25_address *rose_call; > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s; > > > > > > > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > > > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > - else > > > > - rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > > > + if (neigh->dev) { > > > > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) > > > > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; > > > > + else > > > > + rose_call = &rose_callsign; > > > > + } else { > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > + } > > > > > > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev > > > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, > > > checking for it like this will not work. > > > > > > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who > > > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check > > > for this properly. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hello All, > > > > I investigated further on this, > > > > Here is some things i noticed: > > > > When I followed the call trace, > > > > [ 84.241331][ C3] Call Trace: > > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_transmit_clear_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_link.c:255) > > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on ($SOURCE/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4161) > > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_rx_call_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:999) > > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_release ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:970) > > [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_loopback_timer ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:100) > > [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_transmit_link ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:60) > > > > in the rose_send_frame() it dereferenced `neigh->dev` when called from > > rose_transmit_clear_request(), and the first occurance of the `neigh` > > is in rose_loopback_timer() as `rose_loopback_neigh`, and it is initialized > > in rose_add_loopback_neighh() as NULL. > > > > - net/rose/rose_route.c:381 > > > > void rose_add_loopback_neigh(void) > > { > > struct rose_neigh *sn; > > > > rose_loopback_neigh = kmalloc(sizeof(struct rose_neigh), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!rose_loopback_neigh) > > return; > > sn = rose_loopback_neigh; > > > > sn->callsign = null_ax25_address; > > sn->digipeat = NULL; > > sn->ax25 = NULL; > > sn->dev = NULL; > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > i.e when `rose_loopback_neigh` used in rose_loopback_timer() its `->dev` was > > still NULL and rose_loopback_timer() was calling rose_rx_call_request() > > without checking for NULL. > > > > > > I have created the following patch to check for NULL pointer. > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > > index 7b094275ea8b..cd7774cb1d07 100644 > > --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void rose_loopback_timer(struct timer_list *unused) > > } > > > > if (frametype == ROSE_CALL_REQUEST) { > > - if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > > + if (rose_loopback_neigh->dev && (dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > > if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) > > kfree_skb(skb); > > } else { > > > > > > > > Please, review it and give me suggestions whether i am going right or not. > > That seems better, does it solve the syzbot test? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Hello Sir, yes this patch is tested by syzbot. Below links triggers same bug: Link 1: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=f46c94afb217ab49c75350adbd467d86ae2b59a6 Link 2: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 Also, can i now send a version 2 of this patch? Thanks, Anmol
diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644 --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh) ax25_address *rose_call; ax25_cb *ax25s; + if (!neigh->dev) + return -ENODEV; + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0) rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; else
In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'. - net/rose/rose_link.c This bug seems to get triggered in this line: rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr; Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for rose_call initialization. Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@gmail.com> --- I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'. net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)