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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:30:37 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.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>, Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] hv_sock: Add validation for untrusted Hyper-V values > > @@ -577,12 +577,19 @@ static bool hvs_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port) > > static int hvs_update_recv_data(struct hvsock *hvs) > > { > > struct hvs_recv_buf *recv_buf; > > - u32 payload_len; > > + u32 pkt_len, payload_len; > > + > > + pkt_len = hv_pkt_len(hvs->recv_desc); > > + > > + /* Ensure the packet is big enough to read its header */ > > + if (pkt_len < HVS_HEADER_LEN) > > + return -EIO; > > > > recv_buf = (struct hvs_recv_buf *)(hvs->recv_desc + 1); > > payload_len = recv_buf->hdr.data_size; > > > > - if (payload_len > HVS_MTU_SIZE) > > + /* Ensure the packet is big enough to read its payload */ > > + if (payload_len > pkt_len - HVS_HEADER_LEN || payload_len > HVS_MTU_SIZE) > > checkpatch warns that we exceed 80 characters, I do not have a strong > opinion on this, but if you have to resend better break the condition into 2 > lines. Will break if preferred. (but does it really warn?? I understand that the warning was deprecated and the "limit" increased to 100 chars...) > Maybe even update or remove the comment? (it only describes the first > condition, but the conditions are pretty clear, so I don't think it adds > much). Works for me. (taking it as this applies to the previous comment too.) Thanks, Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists