netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RESEND] genetlink: reject use of nlmsg

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: <20220929085512.17be934f@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:55:12 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
        Florent Fourcot <florent.fourcot@...irst.fr>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RESEND] genetlink: reject use of nlmsg_flags
 for new commands

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:49:46 +0200 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 08:06:50AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > no bail out for incorrectly set NLM_F_DUMP flag?  
> > 
> > Incorrectly? Special handling is because we want to make sure both bits
> > are set for DUMP, if they are not we'll not clear them here and the
> > condition below will fire. Or do you mean some other incorrectness?  
> 
> I have seen software in the past setting only one of the bits in the
> NLM_F_DUMP bitmask to request a dump. I agree that userspace software
> relying in broken semantics and that software should be fixed. What I
> am discussing if silently clearing the 2 bits is the best approach.

I don't think it is and I don't think I silently clear both.
Here's the code again:

+	flags = nlh->nlmsg_flags;
+	if ((flags & NLM_F_DUMP) == NLM_F_DUMP) /* DUMP is 2 bits */
+		flags &= ~NLM_F_DUMP;
+	if (flags & ~(NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK | NLM_F_ECHO)) {
+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack,
+			       "ambiguous or reserved bits set in nlmsg_flags");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}