This doesn't seem to be reachable normally, but while working on a patch
for the address binding code I ended up triggering this leak and had to
reboot to get rid of the leaking wg sockets.
---
drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
index 0414d7a6ce74..c35163f503e7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
ret = udp_sock_create(net, &port4, &new4);
if (ret < 0) {
pr_err("%s: Could not create IPv4 socket\n", wg->dev->name);
- goto out;
+ goto err;
}
set_sock_opts(new4);
setup_udp_tunnel_sock(net, new4, &cfg);
@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
goto retry;
pr_err("%s: Could not create IPv6 socket\n",
wg->dev->name);
- goto out;
+ goto err;
}
set_sock_opts(new6);
setup_udp_tunnel_sock(net, new6, &cfg);
@@ -414,6 +414,11 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
out:
put_net(net);
return ret;
+
+err:
+ sock_free(new4 ? new4->sk : NULL);
+ sock_free(new6 ? new6->sk : NULL);
+ goto out;
}
void wg_socket_reinit(struct wg_device *wg, struct sock *new4,
--
2.39.2
Hi,
The signed-off-by is missing and the subject does not match the format
of any other wireguard commits.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> This doesn't seem to be reachable normally, but while working on a patch
"Normally" as in what? At all? Or?
> for the address binding code I ended up triggering this leak and had to
> reboot to get rid of the leaking wg sockets.
This commit message doesn't describe any rationale for this patch. Can
you describe the bug?
> ---
> drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
> index 0414d7a6ce74..c35163f503e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/socket.c
> @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
> ret = udp_sock_create(net, &port4, &new4);
> if (ret < 0) {
> pr_err("%s: Could not create IPv4 socket\n", wg->dev->name);
> - goto out;
> + goto err;
`new4` is either NULL or has already been freed here in the `goto retry`
case. `new6` is NULL here.
> }
> set_sock_opts(new4);
> setup_udp_tunnel_sock(net, new4, &cfg);
> @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
> goto retry;
> pr_err("%s: Could not create IPv6 socket\n",
> wg->dev->name);
> - goto out;
> + goto err;
`new4` has just been freed by `udp_tunnel_sock_release` just above the
context. `new6` is NULL.
> }
> set_sock_opts(new6);
> setup_udp_tunnel_sock(net, new6, &cfg);
> @@ -414,6 +414,11 @@ int wg_socket_init(struct wg_device *wg, u16 port)
> out:
> put_net(net);
> return ret;
> +
> +err:
> + sock_free(new4 ? new4->sk : NULL);
> + sock_free(new6 ? new6->sk : NULL);
> + goto out;
> }
>
> void wg_socket_reinit(struct wg_device *wg, struct sock *new4,
I don't see the bug. If there is one, maybe try again with a real patch
that describes it better. If there isn't one, what is the point?
Jason
Hi Jason,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:04:13PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> The signed-off-by is missing and the subject does not match the format
> of any other wireguard commits.
Ah, I don't usually send kernel patches. Forgot to do format.signOff=true.
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > This doesn't seem to be reachable normally, but while working on a patch
>
> "Normally" as in what? At all? Or?
I committed this while working on my address/ifindex binding patch[1]
(which I will also resend shortly), at the time I thought this fix makes
sense in isolation but apparently not.
[1]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2023-August/008148.html,
> > for the address binding code I ended up triggering this leak and had to
> > reboot to get rid of the leaking wg sockets.
>
> This commit message doesn't describe any rationale for this patch. Can
> you describe the bug?
It's been a while since I wrote this patch. Unfortunately you didn't
respond to my initial mail in Aug, so some context has already been lost to
time.
I may have been under the mistaken impression that udp_sock_create can
return <0 while leaving *sockp!=NULL, but as I recall it I did re-test with
this patch and it fixed the bug, that I wish I remembered how to trigger
now. Unsatisfying.
--Daniel