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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:21:00 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        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()

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 06:15:13AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----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?

Whatever happened with this?

regards,
dan carpenter