Hello, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:38 AM Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > ... > > The problem is in net/packet/af_packet.c:packet_recvmsg(). This function, > as well as all other rcvmsg functions, is declared as > > static int packet_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, > int flags) > > MSG_CMSG_COMPAT (0x80000000) is set in flags, meaning its value is negative. > This is then evaluated in > > if (flags & > ~(MSG_PEEK|MSG_DONTWAIT|MSG_TRUNC|MSG_CMSG_COMPAT|MSG_ERRQUEUE)) > goto out; > > If any of those flags is declared as BIT() and thus long, flags is > sign-extended to long. Since it is negative, its upper 32 bits will be set, > the if statement evaluates as true, and the function bails out. > > This is relatively easy to fix here with, for example, > > if ((unsigned int)flags & > ~(MSG_PEEK|MSG_DONTWAIT|MSG_TRUNC|MSG_CMSG_COMPAT|MSG_ERRQUEUE)) > goto out; > > but that is just a hack, and it doesn't solve the real problem: > Each function in struct proto_ops which passes flags passes it as int > (see include/linux/net.h:struct proto_ops). Each such function, if > called with MSG_CMSG_COMPAT set, will fail a match against > ~(MSG_anything) if MSG_anything is declared as BIT() or long. > > As it turns out, I was kind of lucky to catch the problem: So far I have > seen it only on mips64 kernels with N32 userspace. > > Guenter
Wow, now the usages of 'msg_flag' really puzzle me. Seems that it is used as 'unsigned int' somewhere, but 'int' somewhere else. As I found, It is used as 'int' in 'netlink_recvmsg()', 'io_sr_msg->msg_flags', 'atalk_sendmsg()', 'dn_recvmsg()', 'proto_ops->recvmsg()', etc. So what should I do? Revert this patch? Or fix the usages of 'flags'? Or change the type of MSG_* to 'unsigned int'? I prefer the last one(the usages of 'flags' can be fixed too, maybe later). Thanks! Menglong Dong