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  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:   Sat, 22 Oct 2016 11:57:52 -0400
From:   Eric Garver <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Alexander Duyck <>,
        Tom Herbert <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Hadar Hen Zion <>,
        Gao Feng <>,
        Amir Vadai <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flow_dissector: avoid uninitialized variable access

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:16:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 11:05:45 PM CEST Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > Can you explain why "dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN) && skb_vlan_tag_present(skb)" implies
> > "eth_type_vlan(proto))"?
> > 
> > If I add uninitialized_var() here, I would at least put that in
> > a comment here.
> Found it now myself: if skb_vlan_tag_present(skb), then we don't
> access 'vlan', otherwise we know it is initialized because
> eth_type_vlan(proto) has to be true.
> > On a related note, I also don't see how
> > "dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN)"
> > implies that skb is non-NULL. I guess this is related to the
> > first one.
> I'm still unsure about this one.

Only skb_flow_dissect_flow_keys_buf() calls this function with skb ==
NULL. It uses flow_keys_buf_dissector_keys which does not specify
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN, so the if statement is false.

A similar assumption is made for FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS higher up.

> I also found something else that is suspicious: 'vlan' points
> to the local _vlan variable, but that has gone out of scope
> by the time we access the pointer, which doesn't seem safe.

I see no harm in moving _vlan to the same scope as vlan.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists