linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/10] xsk: Add check for unaligned descriptors that overrun UMEM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHApi-mCm1hWyc1jfB3isPqWqaJUuqn7vN1hfSgPb741ngJK9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:50:34 +0200
From:   Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@...tris.com>
To:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc:     Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/10] xsk: Add check for unaligned
 descriptors that overrun UMEM

>
> Let me just check that I understand the conditions under which this
> occurs. When selecting unaligned mode, there is no check that the size
> is divisible by the chunk_size as is the case in aligned mode. So we
> can register a umem that is for example 15 4K pages plus 100 bytes and
> in this case the second to last page will be marked as contiguous
> (with the CONTIG_MASK) and a packet of length 300 starting at 15*4K -
> 100 will be marked as valid even though it extends 100 bytes outside
> the umem which ends at 15*4K + 100. Did I get this correctly? If so,
> some more color in the commit message would be highly appreciated.

Yes. You don't even need to cross the page. For example, if you have a
packet length of 300 _within_ the final page then it could go past the
end of the umem. In this case, the CONTIG_MASK would not even be
looked at. The explanation is in the next commit message with the
test. I will improve the commit message here though.