linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf v3] net/xdp: fix zero-size allocation warning in xskq

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: <eb61966f-8666-80f6-1eab-c89bffe496b8@linux.dev>
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2023 16:58:18 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To:     Andrew Kanner <andrew.kanner@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+fae676d3cf469331fc89@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzbot+b132693e925cbbd89e26@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
        xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, ast@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3] net/xdp: fix zero-size allocation warning in
 xskq_create()

On 10/6/23 4:24 PM, Andrew Kanner wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation, so iiuc it means it will overflow the
>> struct_size() first because of the is_power_of_2(nentries) requirement?
>> Could you help adding some comment to explain? Thanks.
>>
> The overflow happens because there's no upper limit for nentries
> (userspace input). Let me add more context, e.g. from net/xdp/xsk.c:
> 
> static int xsk_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>                            sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen)
> {
> [...]
>                  if (copy_from_sockptr(&entries, optval, sizeof(entries)))
>                          return -EFAULT;
> [...]
>                  err = xsk_init_queue(entries, q, false);
> [...]
> }
> 
> 'entries' is passed to xsk_init_queue() and there're 2 checks: for 0
> and is_power_of_2() only, no upper bound check:
> 
> static int xsk_init_queue(u32 entries, struct xsk_queue **queue,
>                            bool umem_queue)
> {
>          struct xsk_queue *q;
> 
>          if (entries == 0 || *queue || !is_power_of_2(entries))
>                  return -EINVAL;
> 
>          q = xskq_create(entries, umem_queue);
>          if (!q)
>                  return -ENOMEM;
> [...]
> }
> 
> The 'entries' value is next passed to struct_size() in
> net/xdp/xsk_queue.c. If it's large enough - SIZE_MAX will be returned.

All make sense. I was mostly asking to add a comment at the "if (unlikely(size 
== SIZE_MAX)" check to explain this details on why checking SIZE_MAX is enough.