netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: sock: validate data_len before allocating skb in sock_alloc_send

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: <4FC70BA8.5060200@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2012 14:11:52 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sock: validate data_len before allocating skb in
 sock_alloc_send_pskb()

On 05/31/2012 02:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:00:14PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 03:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:46:23 +0200
>>>
>>>> Why doing this test in the while (1) block, it should be done before the
>>>> loop...
>>>>
>>>> Or even in the caller, note net/unix/af_unix.c does this right.
>>>>
>>>>          if (len>   SKB_MAX_ALLOC)
>>>>                  data_len = min_t(size_t,
>>>>                                   len - SKB_MAX_ALLOC,
>>>>                                   MAX_SKB_FRAGS * PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>
>>>>          skb = sock_alloc_send_pskb(sk, len - data_len, data_len,
>>>>                                     msg->msg_flags&   MSG_DONTWAIT,&err);
>>> My impression is that the callers should be fixed to.  It makes no sense
>>> to penalize the call sites that get this right.
>>>
>>> And yes, if we do check it in sock_alloc_send_pskb() it should be done
>>> at function entry, not inside the loop.
>> Sure, so is it ok for me to send a V2 that just do the fixing in
>> sock_alloc_sned_pskb() as it's simple and easy to be accepted by
>> stable version?
>>
>> For the fix of callers, I want to post fixes on top as I find
>> there's some code duplication of {tun|macvtap|packet}_alloc_skb()
>> and I want to unify them to a common helper in sock.c. Then I can
>> fix this issue in the new helper.
> Are packet sockets really affected?
> If yes the only call site that gets this right is unix sockets?

Not affected, only code duplication. It's no harm the check the data_len 
again for packet sockets, so better to unify the code and fix the issue 
in one place?
>
>>> --
>>> 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
> --
> 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

--
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