[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bad74e6-46fb-ebd0-4662-bc66e0f5ab5d@infotecs.ru>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:18:52 +0000
From: Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@...otecs.ru>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"coreteam@...filter.org" <coreteam@...filter.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lvc-project@...uxtesting.org" <lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: ipset: Fix overflow before widen in the
bitmap_ip_create() function.
On 1/11/23 13:19, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Gavrilov,
>
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:54:02AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>> When first_ip is 0, last_ip is 0xFFFFFFF, and netmask is 31, the value of
>> an arithmetic expression 2 << (netmask - mask_bits - 1) is subject
>> to overflow due to a failure casting operands to a larger data type
>> before performing the arithmetic.
>>
>> Note that it's harmless since the value will be checked at the next step.
>
> Do you mean 0xFFFFFFFF (8 rather than 8 'F's) ?
> If so, I agree with this patch.
>
Yes, it's my typo. I meant 0xFFFFFFFF.
>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>
>> Fixes: b9fed748185a ("netfilter: ipset: Check and reject crazy /0 input parameters")
>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@...otecs.ru>
>> ---
>> net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_bitmap_ip.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_bitmap_ip.c b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_bitmap_ip.c
>> index a8ce04a4bb72..b8f0fb37378f 100644
>> --- a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_bitmap_ip.c
>> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_bitmap_ip.c
>> @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ bitmap_ip_create(struct net *net, struct ip_set *set, struct nlattr *tb[],
>>
>> pr_debug("mask_bits %u, netmask %u\n", mask_bits, netmask);
>> hosts = 2 << (32 - netmask - 1);
>
> I think that hosts also overflows, in the case you have described.
> Although it also doesn't matter for the same reason you state.
> But from a correctness point of view perhaps it should also be addressed?
>
As for 'hosts', the expression "2 << (32 - netmask - 1)" is also subject
to overflow, but the type of the variable 'hosts' is u32, and the type
casting gives the correct result. But I will fix it for correctness.
Thank you for review. I will change that in V2.
Ilia.
>> - elements = 2 << (netmask - mask_bits - 1);
>> + elements = 2UL << (netmask - mask_bits - 1);
>> }
>> if (elements > IPSET_BITMAP_MAX_RANGE + 1)
>> return -IPSET_ERR_BITMAP_RANGE_SIZE;
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists