On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:41 AM Vlad Buslov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue 07 Aug 2018 at 23:26, Cong Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:24 AM Vlad Buslov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

        attr_size = tcf_action_full_attrs_size(attr_size);

        if (event == RTM_GETACTION)
-               ret = tcf_get_notify(net, portid, n, &actions, event, extack);
+               ret = tcf_get_notify(net, portid, n, actions, event, extack);
        else { /* delete */
-               ret = tcf_del_notify(net, n, &actions, portid, attr_size, extack);
+               ret = tcf_del_notify(net, n, actions, &acts_deleted, portid,
+                                    attr_size, extack);
                if (ret)
                        goto err;
                return ret;
        }
 err:
-       tcf_action_put_lst(&actions);
+       tcf_action_put_many(&actions[acts_deleted]);
        return ret;

How does this even work?

You save an index in 'acts_deleted', but you pass &actions[acts_deleted]
to tcf_action_put_many(), which seems you want to start from
where it fails, but inside tcf_action_put_many() it starts from 0
to TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO, out-of-bound access at least?

Actions array is declared to be TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO+1 in size, and

Declaration doesn't matter at all, functions see it as a pure pointer
once you pass it as an argument.

initialized to NULL pointers. In loop inside tcf_action_put_many() there
are two checks: One is that index is less than TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO and
another one that pointer is not NULL. In this case I rely on extra NULL
pointer at the end of actions array to prevent out-of-bound access.

True, but you pass &actions[acts_deleted] as the start of the array,
so inside it would be:

&actions[acts_deleted][0]...&actions[acts_deleted][MAX_PRIO]

So, the overall of the result is:

actions[acts_deleted]...actions[acts_deleted + MAX_PRIO]

You have out-of-bound access when acts_deleted > 1.

And if acts_deleted == MAX_PRIO-1, then you don't have any
NULL pointer to rely on.