linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] vsock/virtio: fix src/dst cid format

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: <a0dcb733-ab1c-ac66-2300-fcb90fbacea2@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:31:56 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] vsock/virtio: fix src/dst cid format



On 2016年12月06日 23:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> These fields are 64 bit, using le32_to_cpu and friends
> on these will not do the right thing.
> Fix this up.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
>   net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 14 +++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> index 6120384..22e99c4 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> @@ -606,9 +606,9 @@ static int virtio_transport_reset_no_sock(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>   		return 0;
>   
>   	pkt = virtio_transport_alloc_pkt(&info, 0,
> -					 le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
> +					 le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
>   					 le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_port),
> -					 le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
> +					 le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
>   					 le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_port));

Looking at sockaddr_vm, svm_cid is "unsigned int", do we really want 64 
bit here?

>   	if (!pkt)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ virtio_transport_send_response(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>   	struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info info = {
>   		.op = VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RESPONSE,
>   		.type = VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_STREAM,
> -		.remote_cid = le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
> +		.remote_cid = le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
>   		.remote_port = le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_port),
>   		.reply = true,
>   	};
> @@ -863,9 +863,9 @@ virtio_transport_recv_listen(struct sock *sk, struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>   	child->sk_state = SS_CONNECTED;
>   
>   	vchild = vsock_sk(child);
> -	vsock_addr_init(&vchild->local_addr, le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
> +	vsock_addr_init(&vchild->local_addr, le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
>   			le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_port));
> -	vsock_addr_init(&vchild->remote_addr, le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
> +	vsock_addr_init(&vchild->remote_addr, le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
>   			le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_port));
>   
>   	vsock_insert_connected(vchild);
> @@ -904,9 +904,9 @@ void virtio_transport_recv_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>   	struct sock *sk;
>   	bool space_available;
>   
> -	vsock_addr_init(&src, le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
> +	vsock_addr_init(&src, le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_cid),
>   			le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.src_port));
> -	vsock_addr_init(&dst, le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
> +	vsock_addr_init(&dst, le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid),
>   			le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_port));
>   
>   	trace_virtio_transport_recv_pkt(src.svm_cid, src.svm_port,