Eric Lee / smarc-ti-linux-kernel

Download as
Browse Code ยป

Commit 9ef0298a8e5730d9a46d640014c727f3b4152870

Authored by Jan Engelhardt
Committed by Patrick McHardy
1 parent ff75f40f44
Exists in master and in 20 other branches dlt-processor-sdk-linux-03.00.00.04, newt-ti-linux-3.12.y, processor-sdk-linux-01.00.00, processor-sdk-linux-02.00.01, smarc-ti-linux-3.12.10, smarc-ti-linux-3.12.y, smarc-ti-linux-3.14.y, smarc-ti-linux-3.15.y, smarc-ti-lsk-linux-4.1.y, smarct3x-processor-sdk-04.01.00.06, smarct3x-processor-sdk-linux-02.00.01, smarct3x-processor-sdk-linux-03.00.00.04, smarct4x-800-processor-sdk-linux-02.00.01, smarct4x-processor-sdk-04.01.00.06, smarct4x-processor-sdk-linux-02.00.01, smarct4x-processor-sdk-linux-03.00.00.04, ti-linux-3.12.y, ti-linux-3.14.y, ti-linux-3.15.y, ti-lsk-linux-4.1.y

netfilter: nf_log: avoid oops in (un)bind with invalid nfproto values 

Like many other places, we have to check that the array index is
within allowed limits, or otherwise, a kernel oops and other nastiness
can ensue when we access memory beyond the end of the array.

[ 5954.115381] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000004000000000
[ 5954.120014] IP:  __find_logger+0x6f/0xa0
[ 5954.123979]  nf_log_bind_pf+0x2b/0x70
[ 5954.123979]  nfulnl_recv_config+0xc0/0x4a0 [nfnetlink_log]
[ 5954.123979]  nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x12c/0x1b0 [nfnetlink]
...

The problem goes back to v2.6.30-rc1~1372~1342~31 where nf_log_bind
was decoupled from nf_log_register.

Reported-by: Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho <miguel.filho@gmail.com>,
  via irc.freenode.net/#netfilter
Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>

Showing 1 changed file with 4 additions and 0 deletions Side-by-side Diff

net/netfilter/nf_log.c
Diff comments   View file @ 9ef0298
... ... @@ -85,6 +85,8 @@
85 85  
86 86 int nf_log_bind_pf(u_int8_t pf, const struct nf_logger *logger)
87 87 {
  88 + if (pf >= ARRAY_SIZE(nf_loggers))
  89 + return -EINVAL;
88 90 mutex_lock(&nf_log_mutex);
89 91 if (__find_logger(pf, logger->name) == NULL) {
90 92 mutex_unlock(&nf_log_mutex);
... ... @@ -98,6 +100,8 @@
98 100  
99 101 void nf_log_unbind_pf(u_int8_t pf)
100 102 {
  103 + if (pf >= ARRAY_SIZE(nf_loggers))
  104 + return;
101 105 mutex_lock(&nf_log_mutex);
102 106 rcu_assign_pointer(nf_loggers[pf], NULL);
103 107 mutex_unlock(&nf_log_mutex);