netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

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: <d6d9368d-b468-3946-ac63-abedf6758154@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mkl@...gutronix.de
Cc:     linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        andy@...yhouse.net, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices



On 27/02/2020 05.23, David Miller wrote:
> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:32:41 +0100
> 
>> On 1/30/20 2:30 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> Since commit 8df9ffb888c ("can: make use of preallocated can_ml_priv for per
>>> device struct can_dev_rcv_lists") the device specific CAN receive filter lists
>>> are stored in netdev_priv() and dev->ml_priv points to these filters.
>>>
>>> In the bug report Syzkaller enslaved a vxcan1 CAN device and accessed the
>>> bonding device with a PF_CAN socket which lead to a crash due to an access of
>>> an unhandled bond_dev->ml_priv pointer.
>>>
>>> Deny to enslave CAN devices by the bonding driver as the resulting bond_dev
>>> pretends to be a CAN device by copying dev->type without really being one.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Fixes: 8df9ffb888c ("can: make use of preallocated can_ml_priv for per
>>> device struct can_dev_rcv_lists")
>>> Cc: linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> # >= v5.4
>>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>> Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
>>
>> What's the preferred to upstream this? I could take this via the
>> linux-can tree.
> 
> What I don't get is why the PF_CAN is blindly dereferencing a device
> assuming what is behind bond_dev->ml_priv.
> 
> If it assumes a device it access is CAN then it should check the
> device by comparing the netdev_ops or via some other means.

Yes we do.

> This restriction seems arbitrary.

Since commit 8df9ffb888c the data structures for the CAN filters have 
been moved from net/can/af_can.c into netdev->ml_priv.

PF_CAN only works with CAN interfaces and therefore always checks 
dev->type to be ARPHRD_CAN before accessing netdev->ml_priv.

Bonding and Team driver copy most of the device data structures to 
create bonding/team devices.
They copy dev->type but *not* dev->ml_priv.
That leads to the problematic ml_priv access after passing the dev->type 
check ...

I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team 
devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now 
disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be reasonable.

Regards,
Oliver