* [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xin Long @ 2018-04-11 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: network dev, linux-sctp; +Cc: davem, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Neil Horman
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 <jiji@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
---
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xin Long @ 2018-04-11 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: network dev, linux-sctp; +Cc: davem, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Neil Horman
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 <jiji@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
---
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
@ 2018-04-11 14:36 ` Neil Horman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2018-04-11 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> ---
> 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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 14:36 ` Neil Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2018-04-11 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> ---
> 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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
@ 2018-04-11 14:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, Neil Horman
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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 14:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, Neil Horman
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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 14:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
@ 2018-04-11 14:51 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, Neil Horman
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:42:41AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
>
> Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Sorry, I take this back.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 14:51 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: network dev, linux-sctp, davem, Neil Horman
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:42:41AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
>
> Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Sorry, I take this back.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
@ 2018-04-11 14:51 ` David Miller
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2018-04-11 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lucien.xin; +Cc: netdev, linux-sctp, marcelo.leitner, nhorman
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:58:05 +0800
> @@ -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;
> }
I agree with Neil that we should try to avoid the code duplication here
somehow.
Although we risk gcc emitting two copies of the function if we do
something like:
__sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, check_ports)
{
}
sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr, addr2)
{
return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true);
}
and invoke __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true) from sctp_inet6_cmp_addr().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 14:51 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2018-04-11 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lucien.xin; +Cc: netdev, linux-sctp, marcelo.leitner, nhorman
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:58:05 +0800
> @@ -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;
> }
I agree with Neil that we should try to avoid the code duplication here
somehow.
Although we risk gcc emitting two copies of the function if we do
something like:
__sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, check_ports)
{
}
sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr, addr2)
{
return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true);
}
and invoke __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true) from sctp_inet6_cmp_addr().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 14:36 ` Neil Horman
@ 2018-04-11 14:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Horman; +Cc: Xin Long, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 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.
Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
- af->cmp_addr
- af->cmp_addr_port
Marcelo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 14:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-04-11 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Horman; +Cc: Xin Long, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 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.
Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
- af->cmp_addr
- af->cmp_addr_port
Marcelo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 14:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
@ 2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xin Long @ 2018-04-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner; +Cc: Neil Horman, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > 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.
>
> Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
> read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
> still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
> - af->cmp_addr
> - af->cmp_addr_port
>
What do you think of:
static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
const union sctp_addr *addr2)
{
return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port;
}
(v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xin Long @ 2018-04-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner; +Cc: Neil Horman, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > 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.
>
> Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
> read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
> still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
> - af->cmp_addr
> - af->cmp_addr_port
>
What do you think of:
static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
const union sctp_addr *addr2)
{
return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
addr1->v6.sin_port = addr2->v6.sin_port;
}
(v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
@ 2018-04-11 16:40 ` David Miller
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2018-04-11 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lucien.xin; +Cc: marcelo.leitner, nhorman, netdev, linux-sctp
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:16:58 +0800
> What do you think of:
>
> static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
> const union sctp_addr *addr2)
> {
> return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
> addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port;
> }
>
> (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
> we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
>From my perspective this is OK.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 16:40 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2018-04-11 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lucien.xin; +Cc: marcelo.leitner, nhorman, netdev, linux-sctp
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:16:58 +0800
> What do you think of:
>
> static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
> const union sctp_addr *addr2)
> {
> return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
> addr1->v6.sin_port = addr2->v6.sin_port;
> }
>
> (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
> we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
From my perspective this is OK.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
@ 2018-04-11 19:59 ` Neil Horman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2018-04-11 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:16:58AM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
> > read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
> > still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
> > - af->cmp_addr
> > - af->cmp_addr_port
> >
> What do you think of:
>
> static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
> const union sctp_addr *addr2)
> {
> return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
> addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port;
> }
>
> (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
> we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
Yes, I'd be ok with that
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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr
@ 2018-04-11 19:59 ` Neil Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2018-04-11 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Long; +Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, network dev, linux-sctp, davem
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:16:58AM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> 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 <jiji@redhat.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to
> > read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe
> > still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in:
> > - af->cmp_addr
> > - af->cmp_addr_port
> >
> What do you think of:
>
> static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1,
> const union sctp_addr *addr2)
> {
> return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) &&
> addr1->v6.sin_port = addr2->v6.sin_port;
> }
>
> (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr,
> we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
Yes, I'd be ok with that
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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-11 20:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-11 12:58 [PATCH net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr Xin Long
2018-04-11 12:58 ` Xin Long
2018-04-11 14:36 ` Neil Horman
2018-04-11 14:36 ` Neil Horman
2018-04-11 14:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 14:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
2018-04-11 16:16 ` Xin Long
2018-04-11 16:40 ` David Miller
2018-04-11 16:40 ` David Miller
2018-04-11 19:59 ` Neil Horman
2018-04-11 19:59 ` Neil Horman
2018-04-11 14:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 14:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 14:51 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 14:51 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-04-11 14:51 ` David Miller
2018-04-11 14:51 ` David Miller
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.