netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 12/12] mlx5: support BIG TCP packets

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: <202205070026.11B94DF@keescook>
Date:   Sat, 7 May 2022 00:46:17 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 12/12] mlx5: support BIG TCP packets

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:32:43 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 3:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
> > >     inlined from ‘mlx5e_sq_xmit_wqe’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:408:5:
> > > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:328:25: warning: call to ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
> > >   328 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
> > >       |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, my old friend, inline_hdr.start. Looks a lot like another one I fixed
earlier in ad5185735f7d ("net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy()"):

        if (attr->ihs) {
                if (skb_vlan_tag_present(skb)) {
                        eseg->inline_hdr.sz |= cpu_to_be16(attr->ihs + VLAN_HLEN);
                        mlx5e_insert_vlan(eseg->inline_hdr.start, skb, attr->ihs);
                        stats->added_vlan_packets++;
                } else {
                        eseg->inline_hdr.sz |= cpu_to_be16(attr->ihs);
                        memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, skb->data, attr->ihs);
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                }
                dseg += wqe_attr->ds_cnt_inl;

This is actually two regions, 2 bytes in eseg and everything else in
dseg. Splitting the memcpy() will work:

	memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, skb->data, sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start));
	memcpy(dseg, skb->data + sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start), ihs - sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start));

But this begs the question, what is validating that ihs -2 is equal to
wqe_attr->ds_cnt_inl * sizeof(*desg) ?

And how is wqe bounds checked?


> > > In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
> > >     inlined from ‘mlx5i_sq_xmit’ at ../drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c:962:4:
> > > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:328:25: warning: call to ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
> > >   328 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
> > >       |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  

And moar inline_hdr.start:

	if (attr.ihs) {
		memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, skb->data, attr.ihs);
		eseg->inline_hdr.sz = cpu_to_be16(attr.ihs);
		dseg += wqe_attr.ds_cnt_inl;
	}

again, a split:

	memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, skb->data, sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start));
	eseg->inline_hdr.sz = cpu_to_be16(attr.ihs);
	memcpy(dseg, skb->data + sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start), ihs - sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start));
	dseg += wqe_attr.ds_cnt_inl;

And the same bounds questions come up.

It'd be really nice to get some kind of generalized "copy out of
skb->data with bounds checking that may likely all get reduced to
constant checks".

-- 
Kees Cook