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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220415064133.GA2961@anparri> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:41:33 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] hv_sock: Check hv_pkt_iter_first_raw()'s return value On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:33:23AM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > From: Andrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@...il.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:48 PM > > > > The function returns NULL if the ring buffer has no enough space > > available for a packet descriptor. The ring buffer's write_index > > The first sentence wording is a bit scrambled. I think you mean the > ring buffer doesn't contain enough readable bytes to constitute a > packet descriptor. Indeed, replaced with your working. > > is in memory which is shared with the Hyper-V host, its value is > > thus subject to being changed at any time. > > This second sentence is true, but I'm not making the connection > with the code change below. Evidently, there is some previous > check made to ensure that enough bytes are available to be > received when hvs_stream_dequeue() is called, so we assumed that > NULL could never be returned? I looked but didn't find such a check, > so maybe I didn't look carefully enough. But now we are assuming > that Hyper-V might have invalidated that previous check by > subsequently changing the write_index in a bogus way? So now, NULL > could be returned when previously we assumed it couldn't. I think you're looking for hvs_stream_has_data(). (Previous checks apart, hvs_stream_dequeue() will "dereference" the pointer so...) Thanks, Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists