netdev - Re: [net-next v2] tcp: Explicitly mark reserved field in tcp_zerocopy

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: <20210209061511.GI20265@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:15:11 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arjun Roy <arjunroy.kdev@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, arjunroy@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        soheil@...gle.com, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2] tcp: Explicitly mark reserved field in
 tcp_zerocopy_receive args.

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:41:43AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 10:26:54 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 03:28:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sat,  6 Feb 2021 12:36:48 -0800 Arjun Roy wrote:
> > > > From: Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
> > > >
> > > > Explicitly define reserved field and require it to be 0-valued.
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > > index e1a17c6b473c..c8469c579ed8 100644
> > > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > > @@ -4159,6 +4159,8 @@ static int do_tcp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
> > > >  		}
> > > >  		if (copy_from_user(&zc, optval, len))
> > > >  			return -EFAULT;
> > > > +		if (zc.reserved)
> > > > +			return -EINVAL;
> > > >  		lock_sock(sk);
> > > >  		err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc, &tss);
> > > >  		release_sock(sk);
> > >
> > > I was expecting we'd also throw in a check_zeroed_user().
> > > Either we can check if the buffer is zeroed all the way,
> > > or we can't and we shouldn't validate reserved either
> > >
> > > 	check_zeroed_user(optval + offsetof(reserved),
> > > 			  len - offsetof(reserved))
> > > ?
> >
> > There is a check that len is not larger than zs and users can't give
> > large buffer.
> >
> > I would say that is pretty safe to write "if (zc.reserved)".
>
> Which check? There's a check which truncates (writes back to user space
> len = min(len, sizeof(zc)). Application can still pass garbage beyond
> sizeof(zc) and syscall may start failing in the future if sizeof(zc)
> changes.

At least in my tree, we have the length check:
  4155                 if (len > sizeof(zc)) {
  4156                         len = sizeof(zc);
  4157                         if (put_user(len, optlen))
  4158                                 return -EFAULT;
  4159                 }


Ad David wrote below, the "if (zc.reserved)" is enough.

We have following options:
1. Old kernel that have sizeof(sz) upto .reserved and old userspace
-> len <= sizeof(sz) - works correctly.
2. Old kernel that have sizeof(sz) upto .reserved and new userspace that
sends larger struct -> "f (len > sizeof(zc))" will return -EFAULT
3. New kernel that have sizeof(sz) beyond reserved and old userspace
-> any new added field to struct sz should be checked and anyway it is the same as item 1.
4. New kernel and new userspace
-> standard flow.

Thanks