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:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:30:35 +0100
From:   Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@vandijck-laurijssen.be>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        o.rempel@pengutronix.de,
        syzbot <syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: general protection fault in can_rx_register
Message-ID: <20200121083035.GD14537@x1.vandijck-laurijssen.be>
Mail-Followup-To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>, o.rempel@pengutronix.de,
        syzbot <syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>
References: <00000000000030dddb059c562a3f@google.com>
 <55ad363b-1723-28aa-78b1-8aba5565247e@hartkopp.net>
 <20200120091146.GD11138@x1.vandijck-laurijssen.be>
 <CACT4Y+a+GusEA1Gs+z67uWjtwBRp_s7P4Wd_SMmgpCREnDu3kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8332ec7f-2235-fdf6-9bda-71f789c57b37@hartkopp.net>
 <2a676c0e-20f2-61b5-c72b-f51947bafc7d@hartkopp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <2a676c0e-20f2-61b5-c72b-f51947bafc7d@hartkopp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On ma, 20 jan 2020 23:35:16 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Answering myself ...
> 
> On 20/01/2020 23.02, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
> >
> >Added some code to check whether dev->ml_priv is NULL:
> >
> >~/linux$ git diff
> >diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
> >index 128d37a4c2e0..6fb4ae4c359e 100644
> >--- a/net/can/af_can.c
> >+++ b/net/can/af_can.c
> >@@ -463,6 +463,10 @@ int can_rx_register(struct net *net, struct
> >net_device *dev, canid_t can_id,
> >         spin_lock_bh(&net->can.rcvlists_lock);
> >
> >         dev_rcv_lists = can_dev_rcv_lists_find(net, dev);
> >+       if (!dev_rcv_lists) {
> >+               pr_err("dev_rcv_lists == NULL! %p\n", dev);
> >+               goto out_unlock;
> >+       }
> >         rcv_list = can_rcv_list_find(&can_id, &mask, dev_rcv_lists);
> >
> >         rcv->can_id = can_id;
> >@@ -479,6 +483,7 @@ int can_rx_register(struct net *net, struct net_device
> >*dev, canid_t can_id,
> >         rcv_lists_stats->rcv_entries++;
> >         rcv_lists_stats->rcv_entries_max =
> >max(rcv_lists_stats->rcv_entries_max,
> >
> >rcv_lists_stats->rcv_entries);
> >+out_unlock:
> >         spin_unlock_bh(&net->can.rcvlists_lock);
> >
> >         return err;
> >
> >And the output (after some time) is:
> >
> >[  758.505841] netlink: 'crash': attribute type 1 has an invalid length.
> >[  758.508045] bond7148: (slave vxcan1): The slave device specified does
> >not support setting the MAC address
> >[  758.508057] bond7148: (slave vxcan1): Error -22 calling dev_set_mtu
> >[  758.532025] bond10413: (slave vxcan1): The slave device specified does
> >not support setting the MAC address
> >[  758.532043] bond10413: (slave vxcan1): Error -22 calling dev_set_mtu
> >[  758.532254] dev_rcv_lists == NULL! 000000006b9d257f
> >[  758.547392] netlink: 'crash': attribute type 1 has an invalid length.
> >[  758.549310] bond7145: (slave vxcan1): The slave device specified does
> >not support setting the MAC address
> >[  758.549313] bond7145: (slave vxcan1): Error -22 calling dev_set_mtu
> >[  758.550464] netlink: 'crash': attribute type 1 has an invalid length.
> >[  758.552301] bond7146: (slave vxcan1): The slave device specified does
> >not support setting the MAC address
> >
> >So we can see that we get a ml_priv pointer which is NULL which should not
> >be possible due to this:
> >
> >https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/can/dev.c#n743
> 
> This reference doesn't point to the right code as vxcan has its own handling
> do assign ml_priv in vxcan.c .
> 
> >Btw. the variable 'size' is set two times at the top of alloc_candev_mqs()
> >depending on echo_skb_max. This looks wrong.
> 
> No. It looks right as I did not get behind the ALIGN() macro at first sight.
> 
> But it is still open why dev->ml_priv is not set correctly in vxcan.c as all
> the settings for .priv_size and in vxcan_setup look fine.

Maybe I got completely lost:
Shouldn't can_ml_priv and vxcan_priv not be similar?
Where is the dev_rcv_lists in the vxcan case?

> 
> Best regards,
> Oliver