netdev - Fw: [Bug 196671] New: TUN(GET/ATTACH/DETACH)FILTER ioctls fail in a x86-32 process on an x86-64 kernel

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:15:18 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Fw: [Bug 196671] New: TUN(GET/ATTACH/DETACH)FILTER ioctls fail in a
 x86-32 process on an x86-64 kernel

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:21:36 +0000
From: bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To: stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: [Bug 196671] New: TUN(GET/ATTACH/DETACH)FILTER ioctls fail in a x86-32 process on an x86-64 kernel

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196671

            Bug ID: 196671
           Summary: TUN(GET/ATTACH/DETACH)FILTER ioctls fail in a x86-32
                    process on an x86-64 kernel
           Product: Networking
           Version: 2.5
    Kernel Version: 4.12.0 (Linus)
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
              Tree: Mainline
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P1
         Component: Other
          Assignee: stephen@...workplumber.org
          Reporter: robert@...llahan.org
        Regression: No

These ioctls take a 'struct sock_fprog' but there's no 32-bit compat code,
which has two consequences:

1) The ioctl numbers are incorrect for 32-bit processes running on a 64-bit
kernel. The userspace ioctl numbers use an 8-byte 'size' field but the kernel
expects a 16-byte size field, so the ioctls fail with EINVAL. You can hack
around this by handcoding the 64-bit ioctl number.

2) Userspace must supply a sock_fprog with the 64-bit layout.

Of course these workarounds assume you're running on a 64-bit kernel, so
they're no good if you might be running on a 32-bit kernel.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.