linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] ethtool: Add ability to flash transceiver modules' firmware

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]

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:49:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
 "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "sdf@...gle.com"
 <sdf@...gle.com>, "kory.maincent@...tlin.com" <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 "maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
 "vladimir.oltean@....com" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
 "przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 "ahmed.zaki@...el.com" <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>, "richardcochran@...il.com"
 <richardcochran@...il.com>, "shayagr@...zon.com" <shayagr@...zon.com>,
 "paul.greenwalt@...el.com" <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>, "jiri@...nulli.us"
 <jiri@...nulli.us>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mlxsw <mlxsw@...dia.com>, Petr Machata
 <petrm@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] ethtool: Add ability to flash
 transceiver modules' firmware

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:05:16 +0000 Danielle Ratson wrote:
> > GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK, and you can check it in the caller, before taking
> > rtnl_lock.
> >   
> 
> OK, np. The idea was to have module_flash_fw() that checks the attrs
> and extract them into params and ethnl_act_module_fw_flash() should
> be free from those checks. But if so, maybe this separation is
> redundant and should combine the two?

No strong preference, whatever looks better :)
To use GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK() I think you'll need to pass genl_info here.
You can either to that or move the validation.

> > > +  
> > tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME],  
> > > +				    "File name attribute is missing");
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	params.file_name =
> > > +		nla_data(tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME]);  
> > 
> > Hm. I think you copy the param struct by value to the work container.
> > nla_data() is in the skb which is going to get freed after _ACT returns.
> > So if anyone tries to access the name from the work it's going to UAF?  
> 
> The file_name parameter is not really needed inside the work. Once we
> called request_firmware_direct(), we have all that we need in
> module_fw->fw. Do we still need to avoid that situation? If so, can
> you please suggest how?

I'd pass it to module_flash_fw_schedule() as a separate argument, if it
doesn't have to be saved.