netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] netfilter: sanity checks on NFPROTO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120514163949.37e614f4@rainbow.cbg.collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 16:39:49 +0100
From:	Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] netfilter: sanity checks on NFPROTO_NUMPROTO

Le Mon, 14 May 2012 16:42:35 +0200,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> a écrit :

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 02:56:34PM +0100, Alban Crequy wrote:
> > With the NFPROTO_* constants introduced by commit 7e9c6e
> > ("netfilter: Introduce NFPROTO_* constants"), it is too easy to
> > confuse PF_* and NFPROTO_* constants in new protocols.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
> > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas
> > <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk> Reviewed-by: Vincent Sanders
> > <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk> ---
> >  net/netfilter/core.c |    5 +++++
> >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c
> > index e1b7e05..4f16552 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/core.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
> > @@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
> >  	struct nf_hook_ops *elem;
> >  	int err;
> >  
> > +	if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >=
> > NF_MAX_HOOKS) {
> > +		BUG();
> > +		return 1;
> 
> nf_register_hook returns a negative value on error. -EINVAL can be
> fine.

Is it the patch you mean? Do you want me to do a series repost?


From: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>

netfilter: sanity checks on NFPROTO_NUMPROTO

With the NFPROTO_* constants introduced by commit 7e9c6e ("netfilter: Introduce
NFPROTO_* constants"), it is too easy to confuse PF_* and NFPROTO_* constants
in new protocols.

Signed-off-by: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk>
---
 net/netfilter/core.c |    5 +++++
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c
index e1b7e05..ac56c5b 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
@@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
 	struct nf_hook_ops *elem;
 	int err;
 
+	if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS) {
+		WARN();
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&nf_hook_mutex);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
-- 
1.7.2.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html