[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04c4d6ee-f893-5248-26cf-2c6d1c9b3aa5@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:33:29 +0800
From: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@...il.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: borisp@...dia.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tls: fix possible info leak in
tls_set_device_offload()
On 24/2/2023 11:07, Hangyu Hua wrote:
> On 23/2/2023 19:15, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>> 2023-02-23, 17:05:08 +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:
>>> After tls_set_device_offload() fails, we enter tls_set_sw_offload(). But
>>> tls_set_sw_offload can't set cctx->iv and cctx->rec_seq to NULL if it
>>> fails
>>> before kmalloc cctx->iv. This may cause info leak when we call
>>> do_tls_getsockopt_conf().
>>
>> Is there really an issue here?
>>
>> If both tls_set_device_offload and tls_set_sw_offload fail,
>> do_tls_setsockopt_conf will clear crypto_{send,recv} from the context.
>> Then the TLS_CRYPTO_INFO_READY in do_tls_getsockopt_conf will fail, so
>> we won't try to access iv or rec_seq.
>>
>
> My bad. I forget memzero_explicit. Then this is harmless. But I still
> think it is better to set them to NULL like tls_set_sw_offload's error
> path because we don't know there are another way to do this(I will
> change the commit log). What do you think?
Like a rare case, there is a race condition between
do_tls_getsockopt_conf and do_tls_setsockopt_conf while the previous
condition is met. TLS_CRYPTO_INFO_READY(crypto_info) is not
protected by lock_sock in do_tls_getsockopt_conf. It's just too
difficult to satisfy both conditions at the same time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists