| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAE_XsMJup_TVdebPxgP0p0Ks50LY5=dva9RT+LhTOK3HV28+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:45:04 +0100
From: James Hughes <james.hughes@...pberrypi.org>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmfmac: Ensure that incoming skb's are writable
On 23 April 2017 at 20:34, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
> On 21-4-2017 11:22, James Hughes wrote:
>> On 20 April 2017 at 20:48, Arend van Spriel
>> <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>> + linux-wireless
>>>
>>> On 4/20/2017 1:16 PM, James Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The driver was adding header information to incoming skb
>>>> without ensuring the head was uncloned and hence writable.
>>>>
>>>> skb_cow_head has been used to ensure they are writable, however,
>>>> this required some changes to error handling to ensure that
>>>> if skb_cow_head failed it was not ignored.
>>>>
>>>> This really needs to be reviewed by someone who is more familiar
>>>> with this code base to ensure any deallocation of skb's is
>>>> still correct.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: James Hughes <james.hughes@...pberrypi.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcdc.c | 15 ++++++++--
>>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c | 23 +++++-----------
>>>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/fwsignal.c | 32
>>>> +++++++++++++++++-----
>>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 7 ++++-
>>>> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c
>>>> index 5eaac13..08272e8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c
>>>> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t brcmf_netdev_start_xmit(struct
>>>> sk_buff *skb,
>>>> int ret;
>>>> struct brcmf_if *ifp = netdev_priv(ndev);
>>>> struct brcmf_pub *drvr = ifp->drvr;
>>>> - struct ethhdr *eh = (struct ethhdr *)(skb->data);
>>>> + struct ethhdr *eh;
>>>> brcmf_dbg(DATA, "Enter, bsscfgidx=%d\n", ifp->bsscfgidx);
>>>> @@ -212,23 +212,14 @@ static netdev_tx_t brcmf_netdev_start_xmit(struct
>>>> sk_buff *skb,
>>>> }
>>>> /* Make sure there's enough room for any header */
>>>> - if (skb_headroom(skb) < drvr->hdrlen) {
>>>> - struct sk_buff *skb2;
>>>> -
>>>> - brcmf_dbg(INFO, "%s: insufficient headroom\n",
>>>> - brcmf_ifname(ifp));
>>>> - drvr->bus_if->tx_realloc++;
>>>> - skb2 = skb_realloc_headroom(skb, drvr->hdrlen);
>>>> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>>>> - skb = skb2;
>>>> - if (skb == NULL) {
>>>> - brcmf_err("%s: skb_realloc_headroom failed\n",
>>>> - brcmf_ifname(ifp));
>>>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> - goto done;
>>>> - }
>>>
>>>
>>> What you are throwing away here is code that assures there is sufficient
>>> headroom for protocol and bus layer in the tx path, because that is
>>> determined by drvr->hdrlen. This is where the skb is handed to the driver so
>>> if you could leave the functionality above *and* assure it is writeable that
>>> would be the best solution as there is no need for all the other changes
>>> down the tx path.
>>
>> The skb_cow_head function takes the required headroom as a parameter
>> and will ensure that there is enough space, so I don't think this code
>> segment is
>> required or have I misunderstood what you mean here?
>
> I looked more into what skb_cow_head() and skb_realloc_headroom()
> actually do and it seems you are right.
>
>> Is it safe to rely on the _cow_ being done here and not further down
>> in the stack?
>> Or at least checked further down in the stack. Previous comments from
>> another patch
>> requested that the _cow_ be done close to the actual addition of the
>> header. I presume
>> it is unlikely/impossible that the functions that add header
>> information down the stack
>> will be called without the above being done first?
>
> It is safe. During probe sequence each layer in the driver stack
> increments drvr->hdrlen with headroom it needs. So drvr->hdrlen will
> indicate the total headroom needed when .start_xmit() is called. And
> yes, the .start_xmit() is the single point of entry in the transmit
> path. So the other locations where skb_push() is done are safe.
>
OK, I will redo the patch (making it v3 + changelogs), taking this in
to account.
>>>
>>>> + ret = skb_cow_head(skb, drvr->hdrlen);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>
>>>
>>> So move the realloc code above here instead of simply freeing the skb.
>>>
>>>> + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
>>>> + goto done;
>>>> }
>>>> + eh = (struct ethhdr *)(skb->data);
>>>
>>>
>>> Now this is actually a separate fix so I would like a separate patch for it.
>>>
>>
>> No problem, but see final paragraph below.
>
> Let me see...
I'll split this fix out, but should I issue it in the same patch set
or as a separate patch?
And for a different patch, should I base it on the _cow_ version patch
or the original version?
>
>>> I have a RPi3 sitting on my desk so how can I replicate the issue. It was
>>> something about broadcast/multicast traffic when using AP mode and a bridge,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Arend
>>
>> See this issue for details on replication.
>> https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/issues/673
>>
>> The bridge I use is setup using a similar procedure to that described
>> here. https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/configuration/wireless/access-point.md
>>
>> I'm happy to pass over this work to you guys if you think it is
>> appropriate, you are the
>> experts on the codebase.
>
> Sure. However, I must say you did an excellent job digging into the
> issue and root causing it. We always were under the impression that we
> could treat the skb as our own when handed to us in .start_xmit() callback.
>
> Regards,
> Arend
Thanks! I suspect that a few drivers are making the same mistake, Eric
found 6 over and above the smsc95xx and this one that I originally
found.
Regards
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists