netdev - RE: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do

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: <AM4PR0501MB2260DF0BBBC528A147F07E0DD13D0@AM4PR0501MB2260.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:15:13 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:08 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>; Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>;
> Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>;
> linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()
> 
> I think I'm just going to ask netdev for an opinion on this.  It could be that
> we're just reading the code wrong...
> 
> I'm getting a lot of Smatch warning about buffer underflows.  The problem is
> that Smatch marks everything from nla_data() as unknown and untrusted
> user data.  In do_setvfinfo() we get the "->vf" values from nla_data().  It
> starts as u32, but all the function pointers in net_device_ops use it as a
> signed integer.  Most of the functions return -EINVAL if "vf" is negative but
> there are at least 48 which potentially use negative values as an offset into
> an array.
> 
> To me making "vf" a u32 throughout seems like a good idea but it's an
> extensive patch and I'm not really able to test it at all.  

I will be try to get you patch early next week for core and in mlx5, tested on mlx5 VFs, that possibly you can carry forward?