Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 07:24:18 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+f7e9153b037eac9b1df8@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, vyasevich@gmail.com
Subject: Re: memory leak in sctp_process_init
Message-ID: <20190530112418.GB1966@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
References: <00000000000097abb90589e804fd@google.com>
 <20190528013600.GM5506@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190528111550.GA4658@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <20190529190709.GE31099@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <20190529233757.GC3713@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190529233757.GC3713@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 08:37:57PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:07:09PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> > @@ -2419,9 +2419,12 @@ int sctp_process_init(struct sctp_association *asoc, struct sctp_chunk *chunk,
> >  	/* Copy cookie in case we need to resend COOKIE-ECHO. */
> >  	cookie = asoc->peer.cookie;
> >  	if (cookie) {
> > +		if (asoc->peer.cookie_allocated)
> > +			kfree(cookie);
> >  		asoc->peer.cookie = kmemdup(cookie, asoc->peer.cookie_len, gfp);
> >  		if (!asoc->peer.cookie)
> >  			goto clean_up;
> > +		asoc->peer.cookie_allocated=1;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	/* RFC 2960 7.2.1 The initial value of ssthresh MAY be arbitrarily
> 
> What if we kmemdup directly at sctp_process_param(), as it's done for
> others already? Like SCTP_PARAM_RANDOM and SCTP_PARAM_HMAC_ALGO. I
> don't see a reason for SCTP_PARAM_STATE_COOKIE to be different
> here. This way it would be always allocated, and ready to be kfreed.
> 
> We still need to free it after the handshake, btw.
> 
Yeah, that makes sense, I'll give that a shot.
Neil

>   Marcelo
>