netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: bridge: vlan: add rtm definitions and dump support

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, 14 Jan 2020 18:50:41 +0200
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: bridge: vlan: add rtm definitions and
 dump support

On 14/01/2020 18:49, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/14/20 9:45 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> On 14/01/2020 18:36, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>> On 14/01/2020 17:34, David Ahern wrote:
>>>> On 1/14/20 6:55 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:52:28 +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>>>> +static int br_vlan_rtm_dump(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	int idx = 0, err = 0, s_idx = cb->args[0];
>>>>>> +	struct net *net = sock_net(skb->sk);
>>>>>> +	struct br_vlan_msg *bvm;
>>>>>> +	struct net_device *dev;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (cb->nlh->nlmsg_len < nlmsg_msg_size(sizeof(*bvm))) {
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if it'd be useful to make this a strict != check? At least
>>>>> when strict validation is on? Perhaps we'll one day want to extend 
>>>>> the request?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1. All new code should be using the strict checks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, I did it to be able to add filter attributes later, but it should just use nlmsg_parse()
>>> instead and all will be taken care of.
>>> I'll respin v2 with that change.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Nik
>>>
>>
>> Actually nlmsg_parse() uses the same "<" check for the size before parsing. :)
>> If I change to it and with no attributes to parse would be essentially equal to the
>> current situation, but if I make it strict "!=" then we won't be able to add
>> filter attributes later as we won't be backwards compatible. I'll continue looking
>> into it, but IMO we should leave it as it is in order to be able to add the filtering later.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> If the header is > sizeof(*bvm) I expect this part of
> __nla_validate_parse() to kick in:
> 
>         if (unlikely(rem > 0)) {
>                 pr_warn_ratelimited("netlink: %d bytes leftover after
> parsing attributes in process `%s'.\n",
>                                     rem, current->comm);
>                 NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "bytes leftover after parsing
> attributes");
>                 if (validate & NL_VALIDATE_TRAILING)
>                         return -EINVAL;
>         }
> 

Ah fair enough, so nlmsg_parse() would be better even without attrs.