x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

Subsystems: networking [general], the rest, x.25 stack

7 messages, 4 authors, 2011-02-07 · open the first message on its own page

x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Date: 2011-01-31 13:08:37

Looking at the changes introduced in the commit below, we seem to
introduce an skb leak when a packet with bad facilities are present:

    commit a6331d6f9a4298173b413cf99a40cc86a9d92c37
    Author: andrew hendry [off-list ref]
    Date:   Wed Nov 3 12:54:53 2010 +0000

        memory corruption in X.25 facilities parsing

If I am understanding things correctly then we trigger a -1 return to
the main packet dispatch loop, this being non-zero implies that we have
requeued the skb and it should not be freed.  As it was not requeued,
I believe the skb is no longer referenced and then is leaked.

Perhaps someone better aquainted with this code could review my analysis
in the patch leader below.  If accurate I believe we need the patch below
to resolve this.  If it is not then I suspect a comment is required on
the -1 return.

Thoughts?

-apw
From 5728c05fb669e8ee1e6d20fb7a71916362039411 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:37:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] x25: drop packet on invalid facility headers

The commit below introduced additional checks for invalid facilities,
and a new return path when these were detected:

    commit a6331d6f9a4298173b413cf99a40cc86a9d92c37
    Author: andrew hendry [off-list ref]
    Date:   Wed Nov 3 12:54:53 2010 +0000

	memory corruption in X.25 facilities parsing

This new return path short circuits packet handling, the new return -1
below:

    static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
							    int frametype)
    {
    [...]
                        len = x25_parse_facilities(skb, &x25->facilities,
                                                &x25->dte_facilities,
                                                &x25->vc_facil_mask);
                        if (len > 0)
                                skb_pull(skb, len);
                        else
                                return -1;
    [...]

This return code is passed back up the chain (via x25_process_rx_frame)
and is interpreted as below by the caller:

    int x25_backlog_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
    {
        int queued = x25_process_rx_frame(sk, skb);

        if (!queued)
                kfree_skb(skb);

        return 0;
    }

Here we interpret the non-zero status as indicating the skb has been
requeued and should be preserved.  As we have not actually done so it
will be leaked.

Fix this up by indicating that the packet should be dropped.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
---
 net/x25/x25_in.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/x25/x25_in.c b/net/x25/x25_in.c
index f729f02..213b93a 100644
--- a/net/x25/x25_in.c
+++ b/net/x25/x25_in.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int frametyp
 			if (len > 0)
 				skb_pull(skb, len);
 			else
-				return -1;
+				return 0;
 			/*
 			 *	Copy any Call User Data.
 			 */
-- 
1.7.1

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: Andrew Hendry <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-01 11:55:18

There are two callers, when I was crashing it I don't remember it
using the backlog path.
x25_process_rx_frame is called from both x25_backlog_rcv and also
x25_receive_data (via x25_lapb_receive_frame)

But reviewing that second path now it looks like it will also leak, -1
would make it skip the kfree_skb there as well.
So patch looks good to me, when I have some time I'll run it through
the environment I had setup originally to confirm.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Andy Whitcroft [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
Looking at the changes introduced in the commit below, we seem to
introduce an skb leak when a packet with bad facilities are present:

   commit a6331d6f9a4298173b413cf99a40cc86a9d92c37
   Author: andrew hendry [off-list ref]
   Date:   Wed Nov 3 12:54:53 2010 +0000

       memory corruption in X.25 facilities parsing

If I am understanding things correctly then we trigger a -1 return to
the main packet dispatch loop, this being non-zero implies that we have
requeued the skb and it should not be freed.  As it was not requeued,
I believe the skb is no longer referenced and then is leaked.

Perhaps someone better aquainted with this code could review my analysis
in the patch leader below.  If accurate I believe we need the patch below
to resolve this.  If it is not then I suspect a comment is required on
the -1 return.

Thoughts?

-apw

From 5728c05fb669e8ee1e6d20fb7a71916362039411 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:37:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] x25: drop packet on invalid facility headers

The commit below introduced additional checks for invalid facilities,
and a new return path when these were detected:

   commit a6331d6f9a4298173b413cf99a40cc86a9d92c37
   Author: andrew hendry [off-list ref]
   Date:   Wed Nov 3 12:54:53 2010 +0000

       memory corruption in X.25 facilities parsing

This new return path short circuits packet handling, the new return -1
below:

   static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
                                                           int frametype)
   {
   [...]
                       len = x25_parse_facilities(skb, &x25->facilities,
                                               &x25->dte_facilities,
                                               &x25->vc_facil_mask);
                       if (len > 0)
                               skb_pull(skb, len);
                       else
                               return -1;
   [...]

This return code is passed back up the chain (via x25_process_rx_frame)
and is interpreted as below by the caller:

   int x25_backlog_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
   {
       int queued = x25_process_rx_frame(sk, skb);

       if (!queued)
               kfree_skb(skb);

       return 0;
   }

Here we interpret the non-zero status as indicating the skb has been
requeued and should be preserved.  As we have not actually done so it
will be leaked.

Fix this up by indicating that the packet should be dropped.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
---
 net/x25/x25_in.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/x25/x25_in.c b/net/x25/x25_in.c
index f729f02..213b93a 100644
--- a/net/x25/x25_in.c
+++ b/net/x25/x25_in.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int frametyp
                       if (len > 0)
                               skb_pull(skb, len);
                       else
-                               return -1;
+                               return 0;
                       /*
                        *      Copy any Call User Data.
                        */
--
1.7.1

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2011-02-07 04:27:50

From: Andrew Hendry <redacted>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:55:13 +1100
There are two callers, when I was crashing it I don't remember it
using the backlog path.
x25_process_rx_frame is called from both x25_backlog_rcv and also
x25_receive_data (via x25_lapb_receive_frame)

But reviewing that second path now it looks like it will also leak, -1
would make it skip the kfree_skb there as well.
So patch looks good to me, when I have some time I'll run it through
the environment I had setup originally to confirm.
Andrew, have you had a chance to do this yet?

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: Andrew Hendry <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-07 06:29:46

The issue is a bit more complex than Andy's patch, I think I have a full fix.
Burning it in on test system now, if thats OK ill post patch in a few hours.


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:
From: Andrew Hendry <redacted>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:55:13 +1100
quoted
There are two callers, when I was crashing it I don't remember it
using the backlog path.
x25_process_rx_frame is called from both x25_backlog_rcv and also
x25_receive_data (via x25_lapb_receive_frame)

But reviewing that second path now it looks like it will also leak, -1
would make it skip the kfree_skb there as well.
So patch looks good to me, when I have some time I'll run it through
the environment I had setup originally to confirm.
Andrew, have you had a chance to do this yet?

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: John Hughes <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-07 09:31:06

On 31/01/11 14:08, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Looking at the changes introduced in the commit below, we seem to
introduce an skb leak when a packet with bad facilities are present:

     commit a6331d6f9a4298173b413cf99a40cc86a9d92c37
     Author: andrew hendry[off-list ref]
     Date:   Wed Nov 3 12:54:53 2010 +0000

         memory corruption in X.25 facilities parsing

If I am understanding things correctly then we trigger a -1 return to
the main packet dispatch loop, this being non-zero implies that we have
requeued the skb and it should not be freed.  As it was not requeued,
I believe the skb is no longer referenced and then is leaked.

Perhaps someone better aquainted with this code could review my analysis
in the patch leader below.  If accurate I believe we need the patch below
to resolve this.  If it is not then I suspect a comment is required on
the -1 return.

Thoughts?
   
Sadly, after nearly 30 years (1982-2010) we've just closed our last X.25 line so I can no longer test this.

Sorry.

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: Andrew Hendry <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-07 10:08:29

Originally x25_parse_facilities returned
-1 for an error
 0 meaning 0 length facilities
0 the length of the facilities parsed.
5ef41308f94dc introduced more error checking in x25_parse_facilities
however used 0 to indicate bad parsing
a6331d6f9a429 followed this further for DTE facilities, again using 0 for bad parsing.

The meaning of 0 got confused in the callers.
If the facilities are messed up we can't determine where the data starts.
So patch makes all parsing errors return -1 and ensures callers close and don't use the skb further.

Reported-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Hendry <redacted>


---
 net/x25/x25_facilities.c |   28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
 net/x25/x25_in.c         |   14 +++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/x25/x25_facilities.c b/net/x25/x25_facilities.c
index 55187c8..4062075 100644
--- a/net/x25/x25_facilities.c
+++ b/net/x25/x25_facilities.c
@@ -27,9 +27,19 @@
 #include <net/sock.h>
 #include <net/x25.h>
 
-/*
- * Parse a set of facilities into the facilities structures. Unrecognised
- *	facilities are written to the debug log file.
+/**
+ * x25_parse_facilities - Parse facilities from skb into the facilities structs
+ *
+ * @skb: sk_buff to parse
+ * @facilities: Regular facilites, updated as facilities are found
+ * @dte_facs: ITU DTE facilities, updated as DTE facilities are found
+ * @vc_fac_mask: mask is updated with all facilities found
+ *
+ * Return codes:
+ *  -1 - Parsing error, caller should drop call and clean up
+ *   0 - Parse OK, this skb has no facilities
+ *  >0 - Parse OK, returns the length of the facilities header
+ *
  */
 int x25_parse_facilities(struct sk_buff *skb, struct x25_facilities *facilities,
 		struct x25_dte_facilities *dte_facs, unsigned long *vc_fac_mask)
@@ -62,7 +72,7 @@ int x25_parse_facilities(struct sk_buff *skb, struct x25_facilities *facilities,
 		switch (*p & X25_FAC_CLASS_MASK) {
 		case X25_FAC_CLASS_A:
 			if (len < 2)
-				return 0;
+				return -1;
 			switch (*p) {
 			case X25_FAC_REVERSE:
 				if((p[1] & 0x81) == 0x81) {
@@ -107,7 +117,7 @@ int x25_parse_facilities(struct sk_buff *skb, struct x25_facilities *facilities,
 			break;
 		case X25_FAC_CLASS_B:
 			if (len < 3)
-				return 0;
+				return -1;
 			switch (*p) {
 			case X25_FAC_PACKET_SIZE:
 				facilities->pacsize_in  = p[1];
@@ -130,7 +140,7 @@ int x25_parse_facilities(struct sk_buff *skb, struct x25_facilities *facilities,
 			break;
 		case X25_FAC_CLASS_C:
 			if (len < 4)
-				return 0;
+				return -1;
 			printk(KERN_DEBUG "X.25: unknown facility %02X, "
 			       "values %02X, %02X, %02X\n",
 			       p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3]);
@@ -139,18 +149,18 @@ int x25_parse_facilities(struct sk_buff *skb, struct x25_facilities *facilities,
 			break;
 		case X25_FAC_CLASS_D:
 			if (len < p[1] + 2)
-				return 0;
+				return -1;
 			switch (*p) {
 			case X25_FAC_CALLING_AE:
 				if (p[1] > X25_MAX_DTE_FACIL_LEN || p[1] <= 1)
-					return 0;
+					return -1;
 				dte_facs->calling_len = p[2];
 				memcpy(dte_facs->calling_ae, &p[3], p[1] - 1);
 				*vc_fac_mask |= X25_MASK_CALLING_AE;
 				break;
 			case X25_FAC_CALLED_AE:
 				if (p[1] > X25_MAX_DTE_FACIL_LEN || p[1] <= 1)
-					return 0;
+					return -1;
 				dte_facs->called_len = p[2];
 				memcpy(dte_facs->called_ae, &p[3], p[1] - 1);
 				*vc_fac_mask |= X25_MASK_CALLED_AE;
diff --git a/net/x25/x25_in.c b/net/x25/x25_in.c
index f729f02..15de65f 100644
--- a/net/x25/x25_in.c
+++ b/net/x25/x25_in.c
@@ -91,10 +91,10 @@ static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int frametyp
 {
 	struct x25_address source_addr, dest_addr;
 	int len;
+	struct x25_sock *x25 = x25_sk(sk);
 
 	switch (frametype) {
 		case X25_CALL_ACCEPTED: {
-			struct x25_sock *x25 = x25_sk(sk);
 
 			x25_stop_timer(sk);
 			x25->condition = 0x00;
@@ -113,14 +113,16 @@ static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int frametyp
 						&dest_addr);
 			if (len > 0)
 				skb_pull(skb, len);
+			else if (len < 0)
+				goto out_clear;
 
 			len = x25_parse_facilities(skb, &x25->facilities,
 						&x25->dte_facilities,
 						&x25->vc_facil_mask);
 			if (len > 0)
 				skb_pull(skb, len);
-			else
-				return -1;
+			else if (len < 0)
+				goto out_clear;
 			/*
 			 *	Copy any Call User Data.
 			 */
@@ -144,6 +146,12 @@ static int x25_state1_machine(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int frametyp
 	}
 
 	return 0;
+
+out_clear:
+	x25_write_internal(sk, X25_CLEAR_REQUEST);
+	x25->state = X25_STATE_2;
+	x25_start_t23timer(sk);
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
1.7.1



On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 17:29 +1100, Andrew Hendry wrote:
> The issue is a bit more complex than Andy's patch, I think I have a full fix.
> Burning it in on test system now, if thats OK ill post patch in a few hours.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Andrew Hendry <andrew.hendry@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:55:13 +1100
> >
> >> There are two callers, when I was crashing it I don't remember it
> >> using the backlog path.
> >> x25_process_rx_frame is called from both x25_backlog_rcv and also
> >> x25_receive_data (via x25_lapb_receive_frame)
> >>
> >> But reviewing that second path now it looks like it will also leak, -1
> >> would make it skip the kfree_skb there as well.
> >> So patch looks good to me, when I have some time I'll run it through
> >> the environment I had setup originally to confirm.
> >
> > Andrew, have you had a chance to do this yet?
> >

Re: x25: possible skb leak on bad facilities

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2011-02-07 21:42:07

From: Andrew Hendry <redacted>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:08:15 +1100
Originally x25_parse_facilities returned
-1 for an error
 0 meaning 0 length facilities
quoted
0 the length of the facilities parsed.
5ef41308f94dc introduced more error checking in x25_parse_facilities
however used 0 to indicate bad parsing
a6331d6f9a429 followed this further for DTE facilities, again using 0 for bad parsing.

The meaning of 0 got confused in the callers.
If the facilities are messed up we can't determine where the data starts.
So patch makes all parsing errors return -1 and ensures callers close and don't use the skb further.

Reported-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Hendry <redacted>
Please reference the commit header line text when referring to SHA1
IDs, because when backporting to other GIT trees the SHA1 IDs might be
different.

I took care of this when applying your patch, thanks.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help