linux-kernel - Re: net: GPF in eth

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: <CAAeHK+xr+GdLbLch7XatW5rifOz+=cjRCGf1ro8WxEZWziyU4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:26:53 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: net: GPF in eth_header

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Eric Dumazet <erdlkml@...il.com> wrote:
>> I actually see multiple places where skb_network_offset() is used as
>> an argument to skb_pull().
>> So I guess every place can potentially be buggy.
>
> Well, I think the intent is to accept a negative number.

I'm not sure that was the intent since it results in a signedness
issue which leads to an out-of-bounds.

A quick grep shows that the same issue can potentially happen in
multiple places across the kernel:

net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1655: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/packet/af_packet.c:2043: skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/packet/af_packet.c:2165: skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/core/neighbour.c:1301: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/core/neighbour.c:1331: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/core/dev.c:3157: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/sched/sch_teql.c:337: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/sched/sch_atm.c:479: skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1385: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c:391: if (!pskb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb) + ihl))
drivers/net/vxlan.c:1440: __skb_pull(reply, skb_network_offset(reply));
drivers/net/vxlan.c:1902: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
drivers/net/vrf.c:220: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));
drivers/net/vrf.c:314: __skb_pull(skb, skb_network_offset(skb));

A similar thing also happened to somebody else (on a receive path!):
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4550

Does it make sense to check skb_network_offset() before passing it to
skb_pull() everywhere?

>
> This definitely was assumed by commit e1f165032c8bade authors !
>
> I guess they were using a 32bit kernel for their tests.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "syzkaller" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syzkaller+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.