netdev - Re: [iproute PATCH v3 6/6] lib/libnetlink: Don't pass NULL parameter to memcpy()

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:29:43 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH v3 6/6] lib/libnetlink: Don't pass NULL
 parameter to memcpy()

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:41:31 +0200
Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:

> Both addattr_l() and rta_addattr_l() may be called with NULL data
> pointer and 0 alen parameters. Avoid calling memcpy() in that case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
> ---
>  lib/libnetlink.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/libnetlink.c b/lib/libnetlink.c
> index 874e660be7eb4..fbe719ee10449 100644
> --- a/lib/libnetlink.c
> +++ b/lib/libnetlink.c
> @@ -871,7 +871,8 @@ int addattr_l(struct nlmsghdr *n, int maxlen, int type, const void *data,
>  	rta = NLMSG_TAIL(n);
>  	rta->rta_type = type;
>  	rta->rta_len = len;
> -	memcpy(RTA_DATA(rta), data, alen);
> +	if (alen)
> +		memcpy(RTA_DATA(rta), data, alen);
>  	n->nlmsg_len = NLMSG_ALIGN(n->nlmsg_len) + RTA_ALIGN(len);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -958,7 +959,8 @@ int rta_addattr_l(struct rtattr *rta, int maxlen, int type,
>  	subrta = (struct rtattr *)(((char *)rta) + RTA_ALIGN(rta->rta_len));
>  	subrta->rta_type = type;
>  	subrta->rta_len = len;
> -	memcpy(RTA_DATA(subrta), data, alen);
> +	if (alen)
> +		memcpy(RTA_DATA(subrta), data, alen);
>  	rta->rta_len = NLMSG_ALIGN(rta->rta_len) + RTA_ALIGN(len);
>  	return 0;
>  }

Ok, applied. You never know when GCC language experts might decide
to exploit undefined behavior.