linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: gadget: ncm: Fix handling of zero block length packets

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: <CANP3RGf7qsuwcgVpmOoH0QNh-v4PjRh_xj7Rcz=YJ1TbGiPK0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:56:30 -0800
From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
To: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_ppratap@...cinc.com, 
	quic_wcheng@...cinc.com, quic_jackp@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: gadget: ncm: Fix handling of zero block length packets

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 3:28 AM Krishna Kurapati
<quic_kriskura@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> While connecting to a Linux host with CDC_NCM_NTB_DEF_SIZE_TX
> set to 65536, it has been observed that we receive short packets,
> which come at interval of 5-10 seconds sometimes and have block
> length zero but still contain 1-2 valid datagrams present.
>
> According to the NCM spec:
>
> "If wBlockLength = 0x0000, the block is terminated by a
> short packet. In this case, the USB transfer must still
> be shorter than dwNtbInMaxSize or dwNtbOutMaxSize. If
> exactly dwNtbInMaxSize or dwNtbOutMaxSize bytes are sent,
> and the size is a multiple of wMaxPacketSize for the
> given pipe, then no ZLP shall be sent.
>
> wBlockLength= 0x0000 must be used with extreme care, because
> of the possibility that the host and device may get out of
> sync, and because of test issues.
>
> wBlockLength = 0x0000 allows the sender to reduce latency by
> starting to send a very large NTB, and then shortening it when
> the sender discovers that there’s not sufficient data to justify
> sending a large NTB"
>
> However, there is a potential issue with the current implementation,
> as it checks for the occurrence of multiple NTBs in a single
> giveback by verifying if the leftover bytes to be processed is zero
> or not. If the block length reads zero, we would process the same
> NTB infintely because the leftover bytes is never zero and it leads
> to a crash. Fix this by bailing out if block length reads zero.
>
> Fixes: 427694cfaafa ("usb: gadget: ncm: Handle decoding of multiple NTB's in unwrap call")
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
> ---
>
> PS: Although this issue was seen after CDC_NCM_NTB_DEF_SIZE_TX
> was modified to 64K on host side, I still believe this
> can come up at any time as per the spec. Also I assumed
> that the giveback where block length is zero, has only
> one NTB and not multiple ones.
>
>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_ncm.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_ncm.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_ncm.c
> index e2a059cfda2c..355e370e5140 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_ncm.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_ncm.c
> @@ -1337,6 +1337,9 @@ static int ncm_unwrap_ntb(struct gether *port,
>         VDBG(port->func.config->cdev,
>              "Parsed NTB with %d frames\n", dgram_counter);
>
> +       if (block_len == 0)
> +               goto done;
> +
>         to_process -= block_len;
>
>         /*
> @@ -1351,6 +1354,7 @@ static int ncm_unwrap_ntb(struct gether *port,
>                 goto parse_ntb;
>         }
>
> +done:
>         dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
>
>         return 0;
> --
> 2.34.1
>

In general this is of course fine (though see Greg's auto-complaint).

I haven't thought too much about this, but I just wonder whether the
check for block_len == 0
shouldn't be just after block_len is read, ie. somewhere just after:

block_len = get_ncm(&tmp, opts->block_length);

as it is kind of weird to be handling block_len == 0 at the point where
you are already theoretically done processing the block...

I guess, as is, this assumes the block isn't actually of length 0,
since there's a bunch of following get_ncm() calls...
Are those guaranteed to be valid?

I guess I don't actually see the infinite loop with block_len == 0,
since get_ncm() always moves us forward...

Maybe your patch *is* correct as is, and you just need a comment
explaining *why* block_len == 0 is terminal at the spot you're adding the check.

Also couldn't you fix this without goto, by changing

  } else if (to_process > 0) {
to
  } else if (to_process && block_len) {
    // See NCM spec.  zero block_len means short packet.

--
Maciej Żenczykowski, Kernel Networking Developer @ Google