Commit 9a3c6f2e authored by Daniel Borkmann's avatar Daniel Borkmann Committed by Ben Hutchings

net: sctp: fix panic on duplicate ASCONF chunks

commit b69040d8 upstream.

When receiving a e.g. semi-good formed connection scan in the
form of ...

  -------------- INIT[ASCONF; ASCONF_ACK] ------------->
  <----------- INIT-ACK[ASCONF; ASCONF_ACK] ------------
  -------------------- COOKIE-ECHO -------------------->
  <-------------------- COOKIE-ACK ---------------------
  ---------------- ASCONF_a; ASCONF_b ----------------->

... where ASCONF_a equals ASCONF_b chunk (at least both serials
need to be equal), we panic an SCTP server!

The problem is that good-formed ASCONF chunks that we reply with
ASCONF_ACK chunks are cached per serial. Thus, when we receive a
same ASCONF chunk twice (e.g. through a lost ASCONF_ACK), we do
not need to process them again on the server side (that was the
idea, also proposed in the RFC). Instead, we know it was cached
and we just resend the cached chunk instead. So far, so good.

Where things get nasty is in SCTP's side effect interpreter, that
is, sctp_cmd_interpreter():

While incoming ASCONF_a (chunk = event_arg) is being marked
!end_of_packet and !singleton, and we have an association context,
we do not flush the outqueue the first time after processing the
ASCONF_ACK singleton chunk via SCTP_CMD_REPLY. Instead, we keep it
queued up, although we set local_cork to 1. Commit 2e3216cd
changed the precedence, so that as long as we get bundled, incoming
chunks we try possible bundling on outgoing queue as well. Before
this commit, we would just flush the output queue.

Now, while ASCONF_a's ASCONF_ACK sits in the corked outq, we
continue to process the same ASCONF_b chunk from the packet. As
we have cached the previous ASCONF_ACK, we find it, grab it and
do another SCTP_CMD_REPLY command on it. So, effectively, we rip
the chunk->list pointers and requeue the same ASCONF_ACK chunk
another time. Since we process ASCONF_b, it's correctly marked
with end_of_packet and we enforce an uncork, and thus flush, thus
crashing the kernel.

Fix it by testing if the ASCONF_ACK is currently pending and if
that is the case, do not requeue it. When flushing the output
queue we may relink the chunk for preparing an outgoing packet,
but eventually unlink it when it's copied into the skb right
before transmission.

Joint work with Vlad Yasevich.

Fixes: 2e3216cd ("sctp: Follow security requirement of responding with 1 packet")
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarVlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarBen Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
parent aa001b04
...@@ -523,6 +523,11 @@ static inline void sctp_assoc_pending_pmtu(struct sctp_association *asoc) ...@@ -523,6 +523,11 @@ static inline void sctp_assoc_pending_pmtu(struct sctp_association *asoc)
asoc->pmtu_pending = 0; asoc->pmtu_pending = 0;
} }
static inline bool sctp_chunk_pending(const struct sctp_chunk *chunk)
{
return !list_empty(&chunk->list);
}
/* Walk through a list of TLV parameters. Don't trust the /* Walk through a list of TLV parameters. Don't trust the
* individual parameter lengths and instead depend on * individual parameter lengths and instead depend on
* the chunk length to indicate when to stop. Make sure * the chunk length to indicate when to stop. Make sure
......
...@@ -1638,6 +1638,8 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_assoc_lookup_asconf_ack( ...@@ -1638,6 +1638,8 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_assoc_lookup_asconf_ack(
* ack chunk whose serial number matches that of the request. * ack chunk whose serial number matches that of the request.
*/ */
list_for_each_entry(ack, &asoc->asconf_ack_list, transmitted_list) { list_for_each_entry(ack, &asoc->asconf_ack_list, transmitted_list) {
if (sctp_chunk_pending(ack))
continue;
if (ack->subh.addip_hdr->serial == serial) { if (ack->subh.addip_hdr->serial == serial) {
sctp_chunk_hold(ack); sctp_chunk_hold(ack);
return ack; return ack;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment