linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipvs:set sock send/receive buffer correctly

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: <60c11e72-99eb-fcde-e130-a35ecdc1d2d1@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 06:18:29 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
        horms@...ge.net.au, ja@....bg, pablo@...filter.org,
        kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, fw@...len.de, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@...wei.com>, liujie165@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipvs:set sock send/receive buffer correctly



On 04/17/2019 02:18 AM, linmiaohe wrote:
> From: Jie Liu <liujie165@...wei.com>
> 
> If we set sysctl_wmem_max or sysctl_rmem_max larger than INT_MAX,
> the send/receive buffer of sock will be an negative value. Same as
> when the val is larger than INT_MAX/2.
> 
> Fixes: 1c003b1580e2 ("ipvs: wakeup master thread")
> Reported-by: Qiang Ning <ningqiang1@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <liujie165@...wei.com>
> ---
>  net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> index 2526be6b3d90..c0e4cbed6e74 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> @@ -1278,14 +1278,12 @@ static void set_sock_size(struct sock *sk, int mode, int val)
>  	/* setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &val, sizeof(val)); */
>  	lock_sock(sk);
>  	if (mode) {
> -		val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF + 1) / 2,
> -			      sysctl_wmem_max);
> -		sk->sk_sndbuf = val * 2;
> +		val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_wmem_max);
> +		sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF);

What prevents val * 2 to overflow ? 

Code in sock_setsockopt() looks quite different.

>  		sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK;
>  	} else {
> -		val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF + 1) / 2,
> -			      sysctl_rmem_max);
> -		sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2;
> +		val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max);
> +		sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF);
>  		sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK;
>  	}
>  	release_sock(sk);
>