| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 23:57:15 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 12/12] mlx5: support BIG TCP packets
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:32:43 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 3:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 08:30:48 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > From: Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>
> > > >
> > > > mlx5 supports LSOv2.
> > > >
> > > > IPv6 gro/tcp stacks insert a temporary Hop-by-Hop header
> > > > with JUMBO TLV for big packets.
> > > >
> > > > We need to ignore/skip this HBH header when populating TX descriptor.
> > > >
> > > > Note that ipv6_has_hopopt_jumbo() only recognizes very specific packet
> > > > layout, thus mlx5e_sq_xmit_wqe() is taking care of this layout only.
> > > >
> > > > v2: clear hopbyhop in mlx5e_tx_get_gso_ihs()
> > > > v4: fix compile error for CONFIG_MLX5_CORE_IPOIB=y
> > >
> > > In file included from ../include/linux/string.h:253,
> > > from ../arch/x86/include/asm/page_32.h:22,
> > > from ../arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:14,
> > > from ../arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:19,
> > > from ../arch/x86/include/asm/timex.h:5,
> > > from ../include/linux/timex.h:65,
> > > from ../include/linux/time32.h:13,
> > > from ../include/linux/time.h:60,
> > > from ../include/linux/skbuff.h:15,
> > > from ../include/linux/tcp.h:17,
> > > from ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:33:
> > > In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
> > > inlined from ‘mlx5e_insert_vlan’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:104:2,
> > > inlined from ‘mlx5e_sq_xmit_wqe’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:404:5:
> > > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:328:25: warning: call to ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
> > > 328 | __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
> > > inlined from ‘mlx5e_sq_xmit_wqe’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:408:5:
> > > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:328:25: warning: call to ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
> > > 328 | __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
> > > inlined from ‘mlx5i_sq_xmit’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:962:4:
> > > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:328:25: warning: call to ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
> > > 328 | __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > I guess these warnings show up before this BIG TCP patch ?
> >
> > I do not see any struct_group() being used in mlx5
> >
> > May I ask which compiler is used here, and what CONFIG_ option needs to be set ?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Without our patches drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/ builds
> cleanly. Gotta be the new W=1 filed overflow warnings, let's bother
> Kees.
Hello!
These aren't from W=1. The read overflows are hidden behind W=1. I
imagine this is due to gcc getting smarter and being able to introspect
the possible values of ihs during inlining.
> I believe this is the code in question:
>
> @@ -379,15 +393,36 @@ mlx5e_sq_xmit_wqe(struct mlx5e_txqsq *sq, struct sk_buff *skb,
>
> + u8 *start = eseg->inline_hdr.start;
> +
> + if (unlikely(attr->hopbyhop)) {
> + /* remove the HBH header.
> + * Layout: [Ethernet header][IPv6 header][HBH][TCP header]
> + */
> + if (skb_vlan_tag_present(skb)) {
> + mlx5e_insert_vlan(start, skb, ETH_HLEN + sizeof(*h6));
>
> Unhappiness #1 ^^^
>
> Where mlx5e_insert_vlan() is:
>
> static inline void mlx5e_insert_vlan(void *start, struct sk_buff *skb, u16 ihs)
> {
> struct vlan_ethhdr *vhdr = (struct vlan_ethhdr *)start;
> int cpy1_sz = 2 * ETH_ALEN;
> int cpy2_sz = ihs - cpy1_sz;
Why are these "int"? Seems like they should be u16?
>
> memcpy(&vhdr->addrs, skb->data, cpy1_sz);
^^^^^ this line was actually fixed earlier.
> vhdr->h_vlan_proto = skb->vlan_proto;
> vhdr->h_vlan_TCI = cpu_to_be16(skb_vlan_tag_get(skb));
> memcpy(&vhdr->h_vlan_encapsulated_proto, skb->data + cpy1_sz, cpy2_sz);
^^^^^
This one, though, is the new problem. The lack of annotation in the
struct made me miss it -- this code is asking the compiler to
potentially copy beyond the end of the struct declaration. If this is
intentional, I could suggest a solution, but ...
> }
>
> indeed ihs == ETH_HLEN + sizeof(*h6) will make cpy2_sz come out as something
> much bigger than the vhdr->h_vlan_encapsulated_proto field.
It sounds like it's not. In which case, I would ask: "what validates the
size of ihs?" because neither I nor the compiler can see it. :P If
nothing validates it, then this looks like a potential heap overflow,
though I haven't studied how these is laid out in memory. Maybe it's
harmless, but I never assume that. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists