[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c3e8561-bced-fe61-e7ac-e7635a3f9a7c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:35:38 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, tcs.kernel@...il.com,
vinicius.gomes@...el.com, jhs@...atatu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net:sched fix array-index-out-of-bounds in taprio_change
On 8/11/21 11:30 AM, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/11/21 10:44 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/11/21 7:10 AM, tcs.kernel@...il.com wrote:
>>> From: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@...cent.com>
>>>
>>> syzbot report an array-index-out-of-bounds in taprio_change
>>> index 16 is out of range for type '__u16 [16]'
>>> that's because mqprio->num_tc is lager than TC_MAX_QUEUE,so we check
>>> the return value of netdev_set_num_tc.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+2b3e5fb6c7ef285a94f6@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@...cent.com>
>>> ---
>>> net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
>>> index 9c79374..1ab2fc9 100644
>>> --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
>>> +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
>>> @@ -1513,7 +1513,9 @@ static int taprio_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct nlattr *opt,
>>> taprio_set_picos_per_byte(dev, q);
>>>
>>> if (mqprio) {
>>> - netdev_set_num_tc(dev, mqprio->num_tc);
>>> + err = netdev_set_num_tc(dev, mqprio->num_tc);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto free_sched;
>>> for (i = 0; i < mqprio->num_tc; i++)
>>> netdev_set_tc_queue(dev, i,
>>> mqprio->count[i],
>>>
>>
>> When was the bug added ?
>>
>> Hint: Please provide a Fixes: tag
>>
>> taprio_parse_mqprio_opt() already checks :
>>
>> /* Verify num_tc is not out of max range */
>> if (qopt->num_tc > TC_MAX_QUEUE) {
>> NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Number of traffic classes is outside valid range");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> So what is happening exactly ?
>>
>>
>
> Hi, Eric!
>
> I've looked into this bug, but I decided to write a reproducer for it
> first. Unfortunately, I didn't finish it yesterday, but I have an idea
> about what happened:
>
> taprio_parse_mqprio_opt() may return 0 before qopt->num_tc check:
>
> /* If num_tc is already set, it means that the user already
> * configured the mqprio part
> */
> if (dev->num_tc)
> return 0;
>
> Then taprio_mqprio_cmp() fails here:
>
> if (!mqprio || mqprio->num_tc != dev->num_tc)
> return -1;
>
> That's why we won't get shift-out-of-bound in taprio_mqprio_cmp().
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
array-index-out-of-bounds
Sorry for confusion
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists