On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:09:16PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> In sctp_hash_transport, it dereferences a transport's asoc only under
> rcu_read_lock. Without holding the transport, its asoc could be freed
> already, which leads to a use-after-free panic.
>
> A similar fix as Commit bab1be79a516 ("sctp: hold transport before
> accessing its asoc in sctp_transport_get_next") is needed to hold
> the transport before accessing its asoc in sctp_hash_transport.
>
> Fixes: cd2b70875058 ("sctp: check duplicate node before inserting a new
> transport")
> Reported-by: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/sctp/input.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/input.c b/net/sctp/input.c
> index 5c36a99..69584e9 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/input.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/input.c
> @@ -896,11 +896,16 @@ int sctp_hash_transport(struct sctp_transport *t)
> list = rhltable_lookup(&sctp_transport_hashtable, &arg,
> sctp_hash_params);
>
> - rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(transport, tmp, list, node)
> + rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(transport, tmp, list, node) {
> + if (!sctp_transport_hold(transport))
> + continue;
> if (transport->asoc->ep == t->asoc->ep) {
> + sctp_transport_put(transport);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return -EEXIST;
> }
> + sctp_transport_put(transport);
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> err = rhltable_insert_key(&sctp_transport_hashtable, &arg,
> --
> 2.1.0
>
>
something doesn't feel at all right about this. If we are inserting a transport
to an association, it would seem to me that we should have at least one user of
the association (i.e. non-zero refcount). As such it seems something is wrong
with the association refcount here. At the very least, if there is a case where
an association is being removed while a transport is being added, the better
solution would be to ensure that sctp_association_destroy goes through a
quiescent point prior to unhashing transports from the list, to ensure that
there is no conflict with the add operation above.
Neil
