linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] [PATCH 010 of 14] knfsd: SUNRPC: add a "generic" function to see if the peer uses a secure port

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: <76bd70e30612131226v2bb04437v8eb00705d85419bc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:26:31 -0500
From:	"Chuck Lever" <chucklever@...il.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 010 of 14] knfsd: SUNRPC: add a "generic" function to see if the peer uses a secure port

On 12/12/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:59:27 +1100
> NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> > The only reason svcsock.c looks at a sockaddr's port is to check whether
> > the remote peer is connecting from a privileged port.  Refactor this check
> > to hide processing that is specific to address format.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> > Cc: Aurelien Charbon <aurelien.charbon@....bull.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
> >
> > ### Diffstat output
> >  ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |   20 +++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > --- .prev/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c        2006-12-13 10:32:15.000000000 +1100
> > +++ ./net/sunrpc/svcsock.c    2006-12-13 10:32:17.000000000 +1100
> > @@ -926,6 +926,20 @@ svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk, int
> >               wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep);
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline int svc_port_is_privileged(struct sockaddr *sin)
> > +{
> > +     switch (sin->sa_family) {
> > +     case AF_INET:
> > +             return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in *)sin)->sin_port) < 1024;
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6) || defined(CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE)
> > +     case AF_INET6:
> > +             return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in6 *)sin)->sin6_port) < 1024;
> > +#endif
> > +     default:
> > +             return 0;
> > +     }
> > +}
>
> I'm a bit surprised to see this test implemented in sunrpc - it's the sort
> of thing which core networking should implement?

The check is open-coded in each socket type's bind callout, and
includes a capability check which I believe the NFS server doesn't
require.

> And should that "1024" be PROT_SOCK?

All I can say is.... "Doh!"  I'll send Neil a replacement with this fixed.

-- 
"We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals"
   -- Quarry worker's creed
-
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/