netdev - Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200727162357.GA8022@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:23:57 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        mptcp@...ts.01.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Maybe sockptr_advance should have some safety checks and sometimes
> return -EFAULT? Or you should always use the implementation where
> being a kernel address is an explicit bit of sockptr_t, rather than
> being implicit?

I already have a patch to use access_ok to check the whole range in
init_user_sockptr.