[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZuTdhIZtw8Hc7LXP@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 17:49:08 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Qianqiang Liu <qianqiang.liu@....com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: check the return value of the copy_from_sockptr
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:05:27PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 09/11, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:49:32AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > Can you explain what is not correct?
> > >
> > > Calling BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT with max_optlen=0 should not be
> > > a problem I think? (the buffer simply won't be accessible to the bpf prog)
> >
> > Sure. Sorry for not providing all the details.
> >
> > If I understand the behavior of copy_from_user() correctly, it may
> > return partially copied data in case of error, which then leads to a
> > partially-copied 'max_optlen'.
> >
> > So, do you expect a partially-copied max_optlen to be passed to the
> > eBPF program meanwhile the user still expects a complete one (since no
> > -EFAULT)?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Partial copy is basically the same as user giving us garbage input, right?
> That should still be handled correctly I think.
Not to me.
For explict garbage input, users (mostly syzbot) already expect it is a
garbage.
For partial copy, users expect either an error (like EFAULT) or a success
with the _original_ value.
It is all about expectation of the API.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists