Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] net: rose: Fix Null pointer dereference in rose_send_frame()
From: Anmol Karn <hidden>
Date: 2020-10-15 14:10:24
Also in:
linux-hams, lkml, netdev
Subsystem:
networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
"David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
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:quoted
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 <redacted> --- 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 _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees