[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200811071914.GA832118@PWN>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:19:14 -0400
From: Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
coreteam@...filter.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] ipvs: Fix uninit-value in
do_ip_vs_set_ctl()
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:58:46AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2020, Peilin Ye wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 08:57:19PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:10 PM Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > do_ip_vs_set_ctl() is referencing uninitialized stack value when `len` is
> > > > zero. Fix it.
> > >
> > > Which exact 'cmd' is it here?
> > >
> > > I _guess_ it is one of those uninitialized in set_arglen[], which is 0.
> >
> > Yes, it was `IP_VS_SO_SET_NONE`, implicitly initialized to zero.
> >
> > > But if that is the case, should it be initialized to
> > > sizeof(struct ip_vs_service_user) instead because ip_vs_copy_usvc_compat()
> > > is called anyway. Or, maybe we should just ban len==0 case.
> >
> > I see. I think the latter would be easier, but we cannot ban all of
> > them, since the function does something with `IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH`, which
> > is a `len == 0` case.
> >
> > Maybe we do something like this?
>
> Yes, only IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH uses len 0. We can go with
> this change but you do not need to target net tree, as the
> problem is not fatal net-next works too. What happens is
> that we may lookup services with random search keys which
> is harmless.
I see, I'll target net-next instead.
> Another option is to add new block after this one:
>
> } else if (cmd == IP_VS_SO_SET_TIMEOUT) {
> /* Set timeout values for (tcp tcpfin udp) */
> ret = ip_vs_set_timeout(ipvs, (struct ip_vs_timeout_user *)arg);
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> such as:
>
> } else if (!len) {
> /* No more commands with len=0 below */
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> It give more chance for future commands to use len=0
> but the drawback is that the check happens under mutex. So, I'm
> fine with both versions, it is up to you to decide :)
Ah, this seems much cleaner. I'll send v2 soon, thank you!
Peilin Ye
> > @@ -2432,6 +2432,8 @@ do_ip_vs_set_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
> >
> > if (cmd < IP_VS_BASE_CTL || cmd > IP_VS_SO_SET_MAX)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > + if (len == 0 && cmd != IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > if (len != set_arglen[CMDID(cmd)]) {
> > IP_VS_DBG(1, "set_ctl: len %u != %u\n",
> > len, set_arglen[CMDID(cmd)]);
> > @@ -2547,9 +2549,6 @@ do_ip_vs_set_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
> > break;
> > case IP_VS_SO_SET_DELDEST:
> > ret = ip_vs_del_dest(svc, &udest);
> > - break;
> > - default:
> > - ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > out_unlock:
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists