On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:55:11AM +0100, Alessio Balsini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:09:02AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:11:17PM +0100, Alessio Balsini wrote:
> > > From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit 199ab00f3cdb6f154ea93fa76fd80192861a821d ]
> > >
> > > Andrey reported a out-of-bound access in ip6_tnl_xmit(), this
> > > is because we use an ipv4 dst in ip6_tnl_xmit() and cast an IPv4
> > > neigh key as an IPv6 address:
> > >
> > > neigh = dst_neigh_lookup(skb_dst(skb),
> > > &ipv6_hdr(skb)->daddr);
> > > if (!neigh)
> > > goto tx_err_link_failure;
> > >
> > > addr6 = (struct in6_addr *)&neigh->primary_key; // <=== HERE
> > > addr_type = ipv6_addr_type(addr6);
> > >
> > > if (addr_type == IPV6_ADDR_ANY)
> > > addr6 = &ipv6_hdr(skb)->daddr;
> > >
> > > memcpy(&fl6->daddr, addr6, sizeof(fl6->daddr));
> > >
> > > Also the network header of the skb at this point should be still IPv4
> > > for 4in6 tunnels, we shold not just use it as IPv6 header.
> > >
> > > This patch fixes it by checking if skb->protocol is ETH_P_IPV6: if it
> > > is, we are safe to do the nexthop lookup using skb_dst() and
> > > ipv6_hdr(skb)->daddr; if not (aka IPv4), we have no clue about which
> > > dest address we can pick here, we have to rely on callers to fill it
> > > from tunnel config, so just fall to ip6_route_output() to make the
> > > decision.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ea3dc9601bda ("ip6_tunnel: Add support for wildcard tunnel endpoints.")
> > > Reported-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+01400f5fc51cf4747bec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Tested-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alessio Balsini <balsini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > This was already applied to the 4.4.66 kernel release
> >
> > But this patch applies to the 4.4.y tree. Which is really really odd,
> > what is going on here?
> >
> > confused,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Totally odd... Now that you gave me this heads up, I can see that the
> patch was applied to v4.4.66 and for some reason dropped since v4.4.118.
>
> Can you please take a look? Thanks!
What dropped it? Fixes that resolved other things? Are you sure this
is still needed?
That's all I can tell, you can see the kernel branch as well as I can :)
greg k-h
