Re: [tipc-discussion] [net] tipc: fix NULL pointer dereference in tipc_named_rcv

[Jon M. <jm...@re...>]

On 10/8/20 1:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu,  8 Oct 2020 14:31:56 +0700 Hoang Huu Le wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/tipc/name_distr.c b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> index 2f9c148f17e2..fe4edce459ad 100644
>> --- a/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> +++ b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
>> @@ -327,8 +327,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>>   	struct tipc_msg *hdr;
>>   	u16 seqno;
>>   
>> +	spin_lock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>>   	skb_queue_walk_safe(namedq, skb, tmp) {
>> -		skb_linearize(skb);
>> +		if (unlikely(skb_linearize(skb))) {
>> +			__skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> +			kfree_skb(skb);
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>>   		hdr = buf_msg(skb);
>>   		seqno = msg_named_seqno(hdr);
>>   		if (msg_is_last_bulk(hdr)) {
>> @@ -338,12 +343,14 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>>   
>>   		if (msg_is_bulk(hdr) || msg_is_legacy(hdr)) {
>>   			__skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> +			spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>>   			return skb;
>>   		}
>>   
>>   		if (*open && (*rcv_nxt == seqno)) {
>>   			(*rcv_nxt)++;
>>   			__skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
>> +			spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>>   			return skb;
>>   		}
>>   
>> @@ -353,6 +360,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct sk_buff_head *namedq,
>>   			continue;
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> +	spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
>>   	return NULL;
>>   }
>>   
>> diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
>> index cf4b239fc569..d269ebe382e1 100644
>> --- a/net/tipc/node.c
>> +++ b/net/tipc/node.c
>> @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ static void node_lost_contact(struct tipc_node *n,
>>   
>>   	/* Clean up broadcast state */
>>   	tipc_bcast_remove_peer(n->net, n->bc_entry.link);
>> -	__skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
>> +	skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
> Patch looks fine, but I'm not sure why not hold
> spin_unlock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock) here instead?
>
> Seems like node_lost_contact() should be relatively rare,
> so adding another lock to tipc_named_dequeue() is not the
> right trade off.
Actually, I agree with previous speaker here. We already have the 
nametbl_lock when tipc_named_dequeue() is called, and the same lock is 
accessible from no.c where node_lost_contact() is executed. The patch 
and the code becomes simpler.
I suggest you post a v2 of this one.

///jon

>>   	/* Abort any ongoing link failover */
>>   	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BEARERS; i++) {