On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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+a1c743815982d9496...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > Link: > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan...@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > 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; > > + } > > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running, > checking for it like this will not work. > > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check > for this properly. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Sure sir, understood. Thanks, Anmol
