[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220415160940.GA47428@anparri>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:09:40 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] hv_sock: Check hv_pkt_iter_first_raw()'s return
value
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 02:27:37PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:42 PM
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:33:23AM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > > From: Andrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@...il.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13,
> > 2022 1:48 PM
> > > >
> > > > The function returns NULL if the ring buffer has no enough space
> > > > available for a packet descriptor. The ring buffer's write_index
> > >
> > > The first sentence wording is a bit scrambled. I think you mean the
> > > ring buffer doesn't contain enough readable bytes to constitute a
> > > packet descriptor.
> >
> > Indeed, replaced with your working.
> >
> >
> > > > is in memory which is shared with the Hyper-V host, its value is
> > > > thus subject to being changed at any time.
> > >
> > > This second sentence is true, but I'm not making the connection
> > > with the code change below. Evidently, there is some previous
> > > check made to ensure that enough bytes are available to be
> > > received when hvs_stream_dequeue() is called, so we assumed that
> > > NULL could never be returned? I looked but didn't find such a check,
> > > so maybe I didn't look carefully enough. But now we are assuming
> > > that Hyper-V might have invalidated that previous check by
> > > subsequently changing the write_index in a bogus way? So now, NULL
> > > could be returned when previously we assumed it couldn't.
> >
> > I think you're looking for hvs_stream_has_data(). (Previous checks
> > apart, hvs_stream_dequeue() will "dereference" the pointer so...)
>
> Agreed. I didn't say this explicitly, but I was wondering about the risk
> in the current code (without these hardening patches) of getting a
> NULL pointer from hv_pkt_iter_first_raw(), and then dereferencing it.
Got it. Updated the changelog to:
"The ring buffer's write_index is in memory which is shared with the
Hyper-V host, an erroneous or malicious host could thus change its
value and overturn the result of hvs_stream_has_data()."
Hopefully this can clarify the issue (without introducing other typos).
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists