linux-kernel - Re: [crypto-chtls] Supicious code in chtls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:31:29 +0530
From:   Atul Gupta <atul.gupta@...lsio.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Harsh Jain <harsh@...lsio.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [crypto-chtls] Supicious code in chtls_io



On 4/4/2018 3:16 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c:1203:
>
> 1203                 if (!size)
> 1204                         break;
> 1205 
> 1206                 if (unlikely(ULP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags & ULPCB_FLAG_NO_APPEND))
> 1207                         push_frames_if_head(sk);
> 1208                 continue;
> 1209 
> 1210                 set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags);
> 1211         }
>
>
> The issue is that in the code above, set_bit is never reached due to the 'continue' statement at line 1208.
>
> I wonder if the actual intention of the code was something like this:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> index 5a75be4..a949a6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> @@ -1203,9 +1203,10 @@ int chtls_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page,
>                 if (!size)
>                         break;
>  
> -               if (unlikely(ULP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags & ULPCB_FLAG_NO_APPEND))
> +               if (unlikely(ULP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags & ULPCB_FLAG_NO_APPEND)) {
>                         push_frames_if_head(sk);
> -               continue;
> +                       continue;
> +               }
>  
>                 set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags);
>         }
>
>
> What do you think?
Thanks for pointing, there is additional change required. I will send the patch once the window opens.
>
> I can send a proper patch for this.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo