netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/4] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX

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: <27472f41-1dd3-66a0-d4fc-6b7290c14b27@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:41:44 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dsahern@...il.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, mrv@...atatu.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, alex.aring@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/4] net sched actions: dump more than
 TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

On 17-07-25 08:37 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:34:58PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>> On 17-07-25 07:33 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:22:44PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:

[..]
>>> What if I pass val 0x1 and selector 0x0 from userspace. I don't have the
>>> bit selected, so you should not process it in kernel, no?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, valid point. I am not sure - should we reject?
> 
> I think that the validation might check this and reject. Makes sense to
> me.
> 

How does this look? I havent tested it but covers all angles
I can think of.

static int validate_nla_bitfield32(const struct nlattr *nla,
                                     void *valid_flags_allowed)
{
         const struct nla_bitfield32 *bf = nla_data(nla);
         u32 *valid_flags_mask = valid_flags_allowed;

         if (!valid_flags_allowed)
                 return -EINVAL;
         /*disallow invalid selector */
         if ((bf->selector & valid_flags_allowed) >*valid_flags_allowed)
                 return -EINVAL;
         /*disallow invalid bit values */
         if (bf->value & ~*valid_flags_mask)
                 return -EINVAL;
         /*disallow valid bit values that are not selected*/
         if (bf->value & ~nbf->selector)
                 return -EINVAL;

         return 0;
}

cheers,
jamal