netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] xennet_start

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: <20170120.143059.1390682983473502518.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com
Cc:     Paul.Durrant@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        wei.liu2@...rix.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xennet_start_xmit assumptions

From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:41:23 -0500

> On (01/19/17 13:47), Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
>> > Specifically I'm talking about the dev_validate_header() check.
>> > That is supposed to protect us from these kinds of situations.
>> 
>> ah, but I run my pf_packet application as root, so I have 
>> capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO), so I slip through the dev_validate_header()
>> check.
> 
> and in that light, should dev_validate_header()
> always return false if len == 0?
> 
> that will take care of all the send paths in af_packet.c
> but it impacts all drivers as well (even though it is the
> logically correct thing to do..)

I think dev_validate_header() almost does the correct thing in
the SYS_RAWIO case.

It clears out the not-provided hard header bytes, but it doesn't
adjust the skb->len.  I think that is a real requirement in this
situation.

CAP_SYS_RAWIO or not, the contract we have with the device is that
there will be at least enough bytes to cover a link layer header.

This probably requires a little bit of an adjustment to the calling
convention.  Perhaps:

	int dev_validate_header(const struct net_device *dev,
				char *ll_header, int len);

So then you can go:

	new_len = dev_validate_header(dev, skb->data, len);
	if (new_len < 0)
		goto out_cleanup_err;
	if (new_len > len)
		__skb_put(skb, new_len - len);

Or something like that.