netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] tcp: fix a signed-integer-overflow bug in tcp_add

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: <15e10efe-f357-ac99-6733-3aefa9bd9525@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:44:55 +0800
From:   "luwei (O)" <luwei32@...wei.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] tcp: fix a signed-integer-overflow bug in
 tcp_add_backlog()


在 2022/10/12 8:31 PM, Eric Dumazet 写道:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 2:35 AM Lu Wei <luwei32@...wei.com> wrote:
>> The type of sk_rcvbuf and sk_sndbuf in struct sock is int, and
>> in tcp_add_backlog(), the variable limit is caculated by adding
>> sk_rcvbuf, sk_sndbuf and 64 * 1024, it may exceed the max value
>> of u32 and be truncated. So change it to u64 to avoid a potential
>> signed-integer-overflow, which leads to opposite result is returned
>> in the following function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Wei <luwei32@...wei.com>
> You need to add a Fixes: tag, please.
>
>> ---
>>   include/net/sock.h  | 4 ++--
>>   net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 6 ++++--
>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
>> index 08038a385ef2..fc0fa29d8865 100644
>> --- a/include/net/sock.h
>> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
>> @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ static inline void __sk_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>    * Do not take into account this skb truesize,
>>    * to allow even a single big packet to come.
>>    */
>> -static inline bool sk_rcvqueues_full(const struct sock *sk, unsigned int limit)
>> +static inline bool sk_rcvqueues_full(const struct sock *sk, u64 limit)
>>   {
>>          unsigned int qsize = sk->sk_backlog.len + atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
> qsize would then overflow :/
>
> I would rather limit sk_rcvbuf and sk_sndbuf to 0x7fff0000, instead of
> 0x7ffffffe
>
> If really someone is using 2GB for both send and receive queues,  I
> doubt removing 64KB will be a problem.
> .

thanks for reply, I will change the type of qsize to u64 in V2. Besides, 
how to limit sk_rcvbuf and sk_sndbuf

to 0x7ffff0000, do you mean in sysctl interface? If so, the varible 
limit will still overflow since it's calculated

by adding sk_rcvbuf and sk_sndbuf.

-- 
Best Regards,
Lu Wei