On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:26 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_output.c b/net/ipv4/ip_output.c > index ba39a52..027a331 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/ip_output.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_output.c > @@ -1524,6 +1524,10 @@ void ip_send_unicast_reply(struct net *net, struct > sk_buff *skb, __be32 daddr, > sk->sk_priority = skb->priority; > sk->sk_protocol = ip_hdr(skb)->protocol; > sk->sk_bound_dev_if = arg->bound_dev_if; > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY > + if (!sk->sk_security && security_sk_alloc(sk, PF_INET, GFP_ATOMIC)) > + goto out; > +#endif > sock_net_set(sk, net); > __skb_queue_head_init(&sk->sk_write_queue); > sk->sk_sndbuf = sysctl_wmem_default; > @@ -1539,7 +1543,7 @@ void ip_send_unicast_reply(struct net *net, struct > sk_buff *skb, __be32 daddr, > skb_set_queue_mapping(nskb, skb_get_queue_mapping(skb)); > ip_push_pending_frames(sk, &fl4); > } > - > +out: > put_cpu_var(unicast_sock); > > ip_rt_put(rt); Seems wrong. We shouldn't ever need ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY in core code. Ifndef CONF_SECURITY then security_sk_alloc() is a static inline return 0; I guess the question is "Where did the sk come from"? Why wasn't security_sk_alloc() called when it was allocated? Should it have been updated at some time and that wasn't done either? Seems wrong to be putting packets on the queue for a socket where the security data was never allocated and was never set to its proper state. there must be a bigger bug here... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
