| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CADvbK_e=4Fo7dmM=4QTZHtNDtsrDVe_VtyG2NVqt_3r9z7R=PA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:47:08 +0800
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] sctp: add spt_pathcpthld in struct sctp_paddrthlds
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:56 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:38:33PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:21 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:03 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Xin Long [mailto:lucien.xin@...il.com]
> > > > > Sent: 11 September 2019 09:52
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:19 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Xin Long
> > > > > > > Sent: 09 September 2019 08:57
> > > > > > > Section 7.2 of rfc7829: "Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS)
> > > > > > > Socket Option" extends 'struct sctp_paddrthlds' with 'spt_pathcpthld'
> > > > > > > added to allow a user to change ps_retrans per sock/asoc/transport, as
> > > > > > > other 2 paddrthlds: pf_retrans, pathmaxrxt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that ps_retrans is not allowed to be greater than pf_retrans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > include/uapi/linux/sctp.h | 1 +
> > > > > > > net/sctp/socket.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h b/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > > > > > > index a15cc28..dfd81e1 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > > > > > > @@ -1069,6 +1069,7 @@ struct sctp_paddrthlds {
> > > > > > > struct sockaddr_storage spt_address;
> > > > > > > __u16 spt_pathmaxrxt;
> > > > > > > __u16 spt_pathpfthld;
> > > > > > > + __u16 spt_pathcpthld;
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > > index 5e2098b..5b9774d 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > > @@ -3954,6 +3954,9 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_paddr_thresholds(struct sock *sk,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This code does:
> > > > > > if (optlen < sizeof(struct sctp_paddrthlds))
> > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > here will become:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (optlen >= sizeof(struct sctp_paddrthlds)) {
> > > > > optlen = sizeof(struct sctp_paddrthlds);
> > > > > } else if (optlen >= ALIGN(offsetof(struct sctp_paddrthlds,
> > > > > spt_pathcpthld), 4))
> > > > > optlen = ALIGN(offsetof(struct sctp_paddrthlds,
> > > > > spt_pathcpthld), 4);
> > > > > val.spt_pathcpthld = 0xffff;
> > > > > else {
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm...
> > > > If the kernel has to default 'val.spt_pathcpthld = 0xffff'
> > > > then recompiling an existing application with the new uapi
> > > > header is going to lead to very unexpected behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > The best you can hope for is that the application memset the
> > > > structure to zero.
> > > > But more likely it is 'random' on-stack data.
> > > 0xffff is a value to disable the feature 'Primary Path Switchover'.
> > > you're right that user might set it to zero unexpectly with their
> > > old application rebuilt.
> > >
> > > A safer way is to introduce "sysctl net.sctp.ps_retrans", it won't
> > > matter if users set spt_pathcpthld properly when they're not aware
> > > of this feature, like "sysctl net.sctp.pF_retrans". Looks better?
> > Sorry for confusing, "sysctl net.sctp.ps_retrans" is already there
> > (its value is 0xffff by default),
> > we just need to do this in sctp_setsockopt_paddr_thresholds():
> >
> > if (copy_from_user(&val, (struct sctp_paddrthlds __user *)optval,
> > optlen))
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > if (sock_net(sk)->sctp.ps_retrans == 0xffff)
> > val.spt_pathcpthld = 0xffff;
>
> I'm confused with the snippets, but if I got them right, this is after
> dealing with proper len and could leave val.spt_pathcpthld
> uninitialized if the application used the old format and sysctl is !=
> 0xffff.
right, how about this in sctp_setsockopt_paddr_thresholds():
offset = ALIGN(offsetof(struct sctp_paddrthlds, spt_pathcpthld), 4);
if (optlen < offset)
return -EINVAL;
if (optlen < sizeof(val) || sock_net(sk)->sctp.ps_retrans == 0xffff) {
optlen = offset;
val.spt_pathcpthld = 0xffff;
} else {
optlen = sizeof(val);
}
if (copy_from_user(&val, (struct sctp_paddrthlds __user *)optval,
optlen))
return -EFAULT;
if (val.spt_pathpfthld > val.spt_pathcpthld)
return -EINVAL;
Which means we will 'skip' spt_pathcpthld if (it's using old format) or
(ps_retrans is disabled and it's using new format).
Note that ps_retrans < pf_retrans is not allowed in rfc7829.
and in sctp_getsockopt_paddr_thresholds():
offset = ALIGN(offsetof(struct sctp_paddrthlds, spt_pathcpthld), 4);
if (len < offset)
return -EINVAL;
if (len < sizeof(val) || sock_net(sk)->sctp.ps_retrans == 0xffff)
len = offset;
else
len = sizeof(val);
if (copy_from_user(&val, (struct sctp_paddrthlds __user *)optval, len))
return -EFAULT;
>
> >
> > if (val.spt_pathpfthld > val.spt_pathcpthld)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> > > > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists