Hi,
did anyone request a CVE yet?
Ciao, Marcus
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:10:57AM +0100, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:21:06PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Looks easy enough to fix ?
>
> Oh. Probably. Thanks. Need to test, but I guess you already did?
>
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ping.c b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > index
> > 2af6244b83e27ae384e96cf071c10c5a89674804..ccfbce13a6333a65dab64e4847dd510dfafb1b43
> > 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > @@ -156,17 +156,18 @@ int ping_hash(struct sock *sk)
> > void ping_unhash(struct sock *sk)
> > {
> > struct inet_sock *isk = inet_sk(sk);
> > +
> > pr_debug("ping_unhash(isk=%p,isk->num=%u)\n", isk, isk->inet_num);
> > + write_lock_bh(_table.lock);
> > if (sk_hashed(sk)) {
> > - write_lock_bh(_table.lock);
> > hlist_nulls_del(>sk_nulls_node);
> > sk_nulls_node_init(>sk_nulls_node);
> > sock_put(sk);
> > isk->inet_num = 0;
> > isk->inet_sport = 0;
> > sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, -1);
> > - write_unlock_bh(_table.lock);
> > }
> > + write_unlock_bh(_table.lock);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ping_unhash);
>
> FWIW, in Pavel's original implementation for 2.4.32 (unused), this was:
>
> static void ping_v4_unhash(struct sock *sk)
> {
> DEBUG(("ping_v4_unhash(sk=%p,sk->num=%u)\n", sk, sk->num));
> write_lock_bh(_hash_lock);
> if (sk->pprev) {
> if (sk->next)
> sk->next->pprev = sk->pprev;
> *sk->pprev = sk->next;
> sk->pprev = NULL;
> sk->num = 0;
> sock_prot_dec_use(sk->prot);
> __sock_put(sk);
> }
> write_unlock_bh(_hash_lock);
> }
>
> Looks like the erroneous optimization (not expecting concurrent activity
> on the same socket?) was introduced during conversion to 2.6's hlists.
>
> So far this cursed function had 3 bugs, two of them security (including
> this one) and one probably benign (or if not, then effectively a subset
> of this bug as it performed some unneeded / stale debugging work before
> acquiring the lock), with all 3 introduced in forward-porting. Maybe
> the nature of forward-porting activity makes people relatively
> inattentive ("compiles with the new interfaces and still works? must be
> correct"), compared to when writing new code.
>
> Anyhow, I share some responsibility for this mess, for having advocated
> this patch being forward-ported and merged back then. I still like
> having this functionality and its userspace security benefits... but I
> don't like the kernel bugs.
>
> Alexander
>
--
Marcus Meissner,SUSE LINUX GmbH; Maxfeldstrasse 5; D-90409 Nuernberg; Zi.
3.1-33,+49-911-740 53-432,,serv=loki,mail=wotan,type=real <meiss...@suse.de>
