From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:36:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20180411143607.GA4141@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <340aad3be762046ca9d02e54edba5bfefa2f4e71.1523451485.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:34140 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752335AbeDKOhA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:37:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <340aad3be762046ca9d02e54edba5bfefa2f4e71.1523451485.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji > Signed-off-by: Xin Long > --- > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > const union sctp_addr *addr2, > struct sctp_sock *opt) > { > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > return 1; > > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } > + > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + return 0; > + > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > return 0; > > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > + return 1; > } > > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, > -- > 2.1.0 > This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. Neil > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 14:36:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr Message-Id: <20180411143607.GA4141@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> List-Id: References: <340aad3be762046ca9d02e54edba5bfefa2f4e71.1523451485.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <340aad3be762046ca9d02e54edba5bfefa2f4e71.1523451485.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Xin Long Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji > Signed-off-by: Xin Long > --- > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > const union sctp_addr *addr2, > struct sctp_sock *opt) > { > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > return 1; > > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family = AF_INET && > + addr2->sa.sa_family = AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] = > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family = AF_INET && > + addr1->sa.sa_family = AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] = > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } > + > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + return 0; > + > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > return 0; > > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > + return 1; > } > > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, > -- > 2.1.0 > This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. Neil > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >