diff options
| author | Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> | 2019-02-05 22:30:27 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2019-02-27 12:08:50 +0300 |
| commit | c74260710e6286671371f745a2954271b0f38516 (patch) | |
| tree | 75c0941900780665c346597296c4ead8df48a081 /net | |
| parent | a35b18616a7351674921fc78080ad931e368c8fb (diff) | |
| download | linux-c74260710e6286671371f745a2954271b0f38516.tar.xz | |
libceph: handle an empty authorize reply
commit 0fd3fd0a9bb0b02b6435bb7070e9f7b82a23f068 upstream.
The authorize reply can be empty, for example when the ticket used to
build the authorizer is too old and TAG_BADAUTHORIZER is returned from
the service. Calling ->verify_authorizer_reply() results in an attempt
to decrypt and validate (somewhat) random data in au->buf (most likely
the signature block from calc_signature()), which fails and ends up in
con_fault_finish() with !con->auth_retry. The ticket isn't invalidated
and the connection is retried again and again until a new ticket is
obtained from the monitor:
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
libceph: osd2 192.168.122.1:6809 bad authorize reply
Let TAG_BADAUTHORIZER handler kick in and increment con->auth_retry.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 5c056fdc5b47 ("libceph: verify authorize reply on connect")
Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20164
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'net')
| -rw-r--r-- | net/ceph/messenger.c | 15 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger.c b/net/ceph/messenger.c index a127d1442116..f7d7f32ac673 100644 --- a/net/ceph/messenger.c +++ b/net/ceph/messenger.c @@ -2091,6 +2091,8 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_connection *con) dout("process_connect on %p tag %d\n", con, (int)con->in_tag); if (con->auth) { + int len = le32_to_cpu(con->in_reply.authorizer_len); + /* * Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer() * should also define ->add_authorizer_challenge() and @@ -2100,8 +2102,7 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_connection *con) */ if (con->in_reply.tag == CEPH_MSGR_TAG_CHALLENGE_AUTHORIZER) { ret = con->ops->add_authorizer_challenge( - con, con->auth->authorizer_reply_buf, - le32_to_cpu(con->in_reply.authorizer_len)); + con, con->auth->authorizer_reply_buf, len); if (ret < 0) return ret; @@ -2111,10 +2112,12 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_connection *con) return 0; } - ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con); - if (ret < 0) { - con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; - return ret; + if (len) { + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; + } } } |