| Message ID | 340aad3be762046ca9d02e54edba5bfefa2f4e71.1523451485.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] sctp: do not check port in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr | expand |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> > --- > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > const union sctp_addr *addr2, > struct sctp_sock *opt) > { > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > return 1; > > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } > + > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + return 0; > + > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > return 0; > > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > + return 1; > } > > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, > -- > 2.1.0 > This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. Neil > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:42:41AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> > > Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> Sorry, I take this back.
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:58:05 +0800 > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > return 1; > > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } > + > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > + return 0; > + > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > return 0; > > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > + return 1; > } I agree with Neil that we should try to avoid the code duplication here somehow. Although we risk gcc emitting two copies of the function if we do something like: __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, check_ports) { } sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr, addr2) { return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true); } and invoke __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2, true) from sctp_inet6_cmp_addr().
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > > > > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > > > > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > > > > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > > > > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> > > --- > > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 > > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c > > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > > const union sctp_addr *addr2, > > struct sctp_sock *opt) > > { > > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); > > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > > > > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); > > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); > > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > > return 1; > > > > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > > + return 1; > > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > > + return 1; > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > > return 0; > > > > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > > + return 1; > > } > > > > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, > > -- > > 2.1.0 > > > This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like > this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to > the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. > That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in: - af->cmp_addr - af->cmp_addr_port Marcelo
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: >> > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It >> > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. >> > >> > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, >> > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. >> > >> > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind >> > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: >> > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). >> > >> > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, >> > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. >> > >> > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") >> > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> >> > --- >> > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 >> > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c >> > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, >> > const union sctp_addr *addr2, >> > struct sctp_sock *opt) >> > { >> > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; >> > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); >> > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; >> > >> > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); >> > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); >> > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, >> > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) >> > return 1; >> > >> > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) >> > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { >> > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && >> > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && >> > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) >> > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == >> > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) >> > + return 1; >> > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && >> > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && >> > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) >> > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == >> > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) >> > + return 1; >> > + return 0; >> > + } >> > + >> > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) >> > + return 0; >> > + >> > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && >> > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && >> > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) >> > return 0; >> > >> > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); >> > + return 1; >> > } >> > >> > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, >> > -- >> > 2.1.0 >> > >> This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like >> this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to >> the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. >> That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. > > Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to > read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe > still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in: > - af->cmp_addr > - af->cmp_addr_port > What do you think of: static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, const union sctp_addr *addr2) { return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) && addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port; } (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr, we've exploited this in many places in SCTP)
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:16:58 +0800 > What do you think of: > > static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > const union sctp_addr *addr2) > { > return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) && > addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port; > } > > (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr, > we've exploited this in many places in SCTP) From my perspective this is OK.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:16:58AM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:58:05PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> > pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It > >> > should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. > >> > > >> > But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, > >> > sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. > >> > > >> > This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind > >> > multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: > >> > lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). > >> > > >> > This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, > >> > but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. > >> > > >> > Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") > >> > Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> > >> > --- > >> > net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > >> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > >> > index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 > >> > --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c > >> > +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c > >> > @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > >> > const union sctp_addr *addr2, > >> > struct sctp_sock *opt) > >> > { > >> > - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > >> > struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); > >> > + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; > >> > > >> > af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); > >> > af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); > >> > @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > >> > if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) > >> > return 1; > >> > > >> > - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) > >> > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { > >> > + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > >> > + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > >> > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > >> > + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > >> > + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > >> > + return 1; > >> > + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && > >> > + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && > >> > + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) > >> > + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == > >> > + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) > >> > + return 1; > >> > + return 0; > >> > + } > >> > + > >> > + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) > >> > + return 0; > >> > + > >> > + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && > >> > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && > >> > + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) > >> > return 0; > >> > > >> > - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); > >> > + return 1; > >> > } > >> > > >> > /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification, > >> > -- > >> > 2.1.0 > >> > > >> This looks correct to me, but is it worth duplicating the comparison code like > >> this from the cmp_addr function? It might be more worthwhile to add a flag to > >> the cmp_addr method to direct weather it needs to check port values or not. > >> That way you could continue to use the cmp_addr function here. > > > > Adding a flag into sctp_v6_cmp_addr will get us a terrible code to > > read. It's already not one of the best looking part of it. Maybe > > still duplicate part of it it, but at 'af' level? As in: > > - af->cmp_addr > > - af->cmp_addr_port > > > What do you think of: > > static int sctp_v6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, > const union sctp_addr *addr2) > { > return __sctp_v6_cmp_addr(addr1, addr2) && > addr1->v6.sin_port == addr2->v6.sin_port; > } > > (v6.sin_port and v4.sin_port have the same offset in union sctp_addr, > we've exploited this in many places in SCTP) Yes, I'd be ok with that Neil > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c index f1fc48e..be4b72c 100644 --- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c +++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c @@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, const union sctp_addr *addr2, struct sctp_sock *opt) { - struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; struct sock *sk = sctp_opt2sk(opt); + struct sctp_af *af1, *af2; af1 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr1->sa.sa_family); af2 = sctp_get_af_specific(addr2->sa.sa_family); @@ -863,10 +863,31 @@ static int sctp_inet6_cmp_addr(const union sctp_addr *addr1, if (sctp_is_any(sk, addr1) || sctp_is_any(sk, addr2)) return 1; - if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) + if (addr1->sa.sa_family != addr2->sa.sa_family) { + if (addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && + addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) + if (addr2->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == + addr1->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) + return 1; + if (addr2->sa.sa_family == AF_INET && + addr1->sa.sa_family == AF_INET6 && + ipv6_addr_v4mapped(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr)) + if (addr1->v6.sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] == + addr2->v4.sin_addr.s_addr) + return 1; + return 0; + } + + if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr, &addr2->v6.sin6_addr)) + return 0; + + if ((ipv6_addr_type(&addr1->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) && + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id && addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id && + addr1->v6.sin6_scope_id != addr2->v6.sin6_scope_id) return 0; - return af1->cmp_addr(addr1, addr2); + return 1; } /* Verify that the provided sockaddr looks bindable. Common verification,
pf->cmp_addr() is called before binding a v6 address to the sock. It should not check ports, like in sctp_inet_cmp_addr. But sctp_inet6_cmp_addr checks the addr by invoking af(6)->cmp_addr, sctp_v6_cmp_addr where it also compares the ports. This would cause that setsockopt(SCTP_SOCKOPT_BINDX_ADD) could bind multiple duplicated IPv6 addresses after Commit 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr"). This patch is to remove af->cmp_addr called in sctp_inet6_cmp_addr, but do the proper check for both v6 addrs and v4mapped addrs. Fixes: 40b4f0fd74e4 ("sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr") Reported-by: Jianwen Ji <jiji@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> --- net/sctp/ipv6.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)