netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tun: support NAPI for packets received from batched XDP buffs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:56:35 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Harold Huang <baymaxhuang@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:XDP (eXpress Data Path)" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tun: support NAPI for packets received from
 batched XDP buffs

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:27 PM Harold Huang <baymaxhuang@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:17 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:59 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 8:20 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:06 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > How big n can be ?
> > >> >
> > >> > BTW I could not find where m->msg_controllen was checked in tun_sendmsg().
> > >> >
> > >> > struct tun_msg_ctl *ctl = m->msg_control;
> > >> >
> > >> > if (ctl && (ctl->type == TUN_MSG_PTR)) {
> > >> >
> > >> >      int n = ctl->num;  // can be set to values in [0..65535]
> > >> >
> > >> >      for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> > >> >
> > >> >          xdp = &((struct xdp_buff *)ctl->ptr)[i];
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I really do not understand how we prevent malicious user space from
> > >> > crashing the kernel.
> > >>
> > >> It looks to me the only user for this is vhost-net which limits it to
> > >> 64, userspace can't use sendmsg() directly on tap.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah right, thanks for the clarification.
> > >
> > > (IMO, either remove the "msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(ctl);" from handle_tx_zerocopy(), or add sanity checks in tun_sendmsg())
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Right, Harold, want to do that?
>
> I am greatly willing to do that. But  I am not quite sure about this.
>
> If we remove the "msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(ctl);" from
> handle_tx_zerocopy(), it seems msg.msg_controllen is always 0. What
> does it stands for?

It means msg_controllen is not used. But see below (adding sanity
check seems to be better).

>
> I see tap_sendmsg in drivers/net/tap.c also uses msg_controller to
> send batched xdp buffers. Do we need to add similar sanity checks to
> tap_sendmsg  as tun_sendmsg?
>

I think the point is to make sure the caller doesn't send us too short
msg_control. E.g the msg_controllen should be sizeof(tun_msg_ctl).

So we probably need to check in both places. (And initialize
msg_controllen is vhost_tx_batch())

Thanks