netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: sock recvbuff must be limited by rmem_max in bpf

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: <20190122174245.soq5nqela6jpzvlg@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:42:56 +0000
From:   Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>
CC:     "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "shaoyafang@...iglobal.com" <shaoyafang@...iglobal.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: sock recvbuff must be limited by rmem_max
 in bpf_setsockopt()

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:20:30PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> When sock recvbuff is set by bpf_setsockopt(), the value must by limited
> by rmem_max.
> It is the same with sendbuff.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
For bug fixes, please target the bpf branch instead of bpf-next
and please also add the Fixes tag:
Fixes: 8c4b4c7e9ff0 ("bpf: Add setsockopt helper function to bpf")

Patch LGTM,
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>

Cc: Lawrence Brakmo, thought?

> ---
>  net/core/filter.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 447dd1b..f30b58a 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -4111,10 +4111,12 @@ static unsigned long bpf_xdp_copy(void *dst_buff, const void *src_buff,
>  		/* Only some socketops are supported */
>  		switch (optname) {
>  		case SO_RCVBUF:
> +			val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max);
>  			sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK;
>  			sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF);
>  			break;
>  		case SO_SNDBUF:
> +			val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_wmem_max);
>  			sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK;
>  			sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF);
>  			break;
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
>