netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: cleanly handle kernel vs user buffers for ->msg

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: <20200513160938.GA22381@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 18:09:38 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: cleanly handle kernel vs user buffers for
 ->msg_control

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:41:57AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > +	 * recv* side when msg_control_is_user is set, msg_control is the kernel
> > +	 * buffer used for all other cases.
> > +	 */
> > +	union {
> > +		void		*msg_control;
> > +		void __user	*msg_control_user;
> > +	};
> > +	bool		msg_control_is_user : 1;
> 
> Adding a field in this structure seems dangerous.
> 
> Some users of 'struct msghdr '  define their own struct on the stack,
> and are unaware of this new mandatory field.
> 
> This bit contains garbage, crashes are likely to happen ?
> 
> Look at IPV6_2292PKTOPTIONS for example.

I though of that, an that is why the field is structured as-is.  The idea
is that the field only matters if:

 (1) we are in the recvmsg and friends path, and
 (2) msg_control is non-zero

I went through the places that initialize msg_control to find any spot
that would need an annotation.  The IPV6_2292PKTOPTIONS sockopt doesn't
need one as it is using the msghdr in sendmsg-like context.

That being said while I did the audit I'd appreciate another look from
people that know the networking code better than me of course.