linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking

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

Message-ID: <20060820004307.GD27115@1wt.eu>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:43:07 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Cc:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking

On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 02:05:20AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 20 August 2006 01:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:05:32AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > Willy,
> > > 
> > > I propose the attached patch (extracted from 2.4.33-ow1) for inclusion
> > > into 2.4.34-pre.
> > > 
> > > (2.6 kernels could benefit from the same change, too, but at the moment
> > > I am dealing with proper submission of generic changes like this that
> > > are a part of 2.4.33-ow1.)
> > > 
> > > The patch makes getsockopt(2) sanity-check the value pointed to by
> > > the optlen argument early on.  This is a security hardening measure
> > > intended to prevent exploitation of certain potential vulnerabilities in
> > > socket type specific getsockopt() code on UP systems.
> > > 
> > > This change has been a part of -ow patches for some years.
> > 
> > looks valid to me, merged.
> 
> Not to me. It heavily violates codingstyle and screws brains
                ^^^^^^^
little exageration detected here.

> with the non-indented else branches.

while they surprized me first, they make the *patch* more readable
by clearly showing what has been inserted and where. However, I have
joined the lines for the merge.

> Learn about goto.

definitely not here. The if() expressions are all one-liners. Adding
a goto would mean two instructions, to which you add 2 braces. It will
not make the code more readable. Patch below is OK. If you have a hard
time understanding it, then it's because it's bedtime for you too :-)

Regards,
Willy


diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
index ac45b13..910ef88 100644
--- a/net/socket.c
+++ b/net/socket.c
@@ -1307,11 +1307,17 @@ asmlinkage long sys_setsockopt(int fd, i
 asmlinkage long sys_getsockopt(int fd, int level, int optname, char *optval, int *optlen)
 {
 	int err;
+	int len;
 	struct socket *sock;
 
 	if ((sock = sockfd_lookup(fd, &err))!=NULL)
 	{
-		if (level == SOL_SOCKET)
+		/* XXX: insufficient for SMP, but should be redundant anyway */
+		if (get_user(len, optlen))
+			err = -EFAULT;
+		else if (len < 0)
+			err = -EINVAL;
+		else if (level == SOL_SOCKET)
 			err=sock_getsockopt(sock,level,optname,optval,optlen);
 		else
 			err=sock->ops->getsockopt(sock, level, optname, optval, optlen);
-- 
1.4.1

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/