On 6/25/25 3:38 PM, Kohei Enju wrote:

quoted

Message-ID: [ref] (raw)

There are two bugs in rose_rt_device_down() that can lead to
use-after-free:

1. The loop bound `t->count` is modified within the loop, which can
   cause the loop to terminate early and miss some entries.

2. When removing an entry from the neighbour array, the subsequent entries
   are moved up to fill the gap, but the loop index `i` is still
   incremented, causing the next entry to be skipped.

For example, if a node has three neighbours (A, B, A) and A is being
removed:
- 1st iteration (i=0): A is removed, array becomes (B, A, A), count=2
- 2nd iteration (i=1): We now check A instead of B, skipping B entirely
- 3rd iteration (i=2): Loop terminates early due to count=2

This leaves the second A in the array with count=2, but the rose_neigh
structure has been freed. Accessing code assumes that the first `count`
entries are valid pointers, causing a use-after-free when it accesses
the dangling pointer.

(Resending because I forgot to cite the patch, please ignore the former 
reply from me. Sorry for messing up.)

This resend was not needed.

The example ([Senario2] below) in the commit message was incorrect. 

Please send an updated version of the patch including the correct
description in the commit message.

[...]

quoted

@@ -497,22 +497,14 @@ void rose_rt_device_down(struct net_device *dev)
 			t         = rose_node;
 			rose_node = rose_node->next;
 
-			for (i = 0; i < t->count; i++) {
+			for (i = t->count - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
 				if (t->neighbour[i] != s)
 					continue;
 
 				t->count--;
 
-				switch (i) {
-				case 0:
-					t->neighbour[0] = t->neighbour[1];
-					fallthrough;
-				case 1:
-					t->neighbour[1] = t->neighbour[2];
-					break;
-				case 2:
-					break;
-				}
+				for (j = i; j < t->count; j++)
+					t->neighbour[j] = t->neighbour[j + 1];

You can possibly use memmove() here instead of adding another loop.

/P