We need to check that sock_from_file(req->file) != NULL.

Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+1e811482aa2c70afa9a0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1e811482aa2c70afa9a0
Fixes: 7481fd93fa0a ("io_uring: Introduce IORING_OP_BIND")
Fixes: ff140cc8628a ("io_uring: Introduce IORING_OP_LISTEN")
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 io_uring/net.c | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
index 69af3df4dc48c..2cfe8bb6e17f2 100644
--- a/io_uring/net.c
+++ b/io_uring/net.c
@@ -1741,9 +1741,13 @@ int io_bind(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
 {
 	struct io_bind *bind = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_bind);
 	struct io_async_msghdr *io = req->async_data;
+	struct socket *sock = sock_from_file(req->file);
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = __sys_bind_socket(sock_from_file(req->file),  &io->addr, bind->addr_len);
+	if (unlikely(!sock))
+		return -ENOTSOCK;
+
+	ret = __sys_bind_socket(sock, &io->addr, bind->addr_len);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		req_set_fail(req);
 	io_req_set_res(req, ret, 0);
@@ -1764,9 +1768,13 @@ int io_listen_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
 int io_listen(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
 {
 	struct io_listen *listen = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_listen);
+	struct socket *sock = sock_from_file(req->file);
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = __sys_listen_socket(sock_from_file(req->file), listen->backlog);
+	if (unlikely(!sock))
+		return -ENOTSOCK;
+
+	ret = __sys_listen_socket(sock, listen->backlog);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		req_set_fail(req);
 	io_req_set_res(req, ret, 0);
-- 
2.43.5

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:05:02 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> We need to check that sock_from_file(req->file) != NULL.
> 
> 

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] io_uring: Check socket is valid in io_bind()/io_listen()
      commit: ad00e629145b2b9f0d78aa46e204a9df7d628978

Best regards,
-- 
Jens Axboe

On 7/13/24 4:05 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> We need to check that sock_from_file(req->file) != NULL.

Yep indeed, that was missed. Thanks, I'll apply this, just moving
the assignment to where the NULL check is for consistency's sake.

-- 
Jens Axboe