linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/18] net: Declare MSG_SPLICE

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: <20230413042917.GA3390869@ZenIV>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 05:29:17 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/18] net: Declare MSG_SPLICE_PAGES internal
 sendmsg() flag

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 01:51:29AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:08:45PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> 
> > @@ -2483,6 +2484,7 @@ static int ____sys_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg_sys,
> >  	}
> >  	msg_sys->msg_flags = flags;
> >  
> > +	flags &= ~MSG_INTERNAL_SENDMSG_FLAGS;
> >  	if (sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> >  		msg_sys->msg_flags |= MSG_DONTWAIT;
> 
> A bit too late, innit?  There's no users of 'flags' downstream of that
> assignment to ->msg_flags, so your &= is a no-op; it should be done
> *before* that assignment...

While we are at it, io-uring has this:
int io_sendmsg_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
{
        struct io_sr_msg *sr = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_sr_msg);
...
        sr->msg_flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->msg_flags) | MSG_NOSIGNAL;

and

int io_send(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
{
        struct sockaddr_storage __address;
        struct io_sr_msg *sr = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_sr_msg);

...
        flags = sr->msg_flags;
        if (issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK)
                flags |= MSG_DONTWAIT;
        if (flags & MSG_WAITALL)
                min_ret = iov_iter_count(&msg.msg_iter);

        msg.msg_flags = flags;
        ret = sock_sendmsg(sock, &msg);

Note that io_sendmsg_prep() handles both IORING_OP_SENDMSG and IORING_OP_SEND,
so this pair of functions can hit the same request.  And sqe->msg_flags is
not sanitized at all - it comes straight from user buffer.