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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f9d9ac80-704a-91d7-b120-449b921e8bb0@infotecs.ru> Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 14:16:09 +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>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, "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: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value. On 5/2/23 17:05, Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:43:19AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote: >> On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote: >>>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now. >>>> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply >>>> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter >>>> failed. Let's fix it. >>>> >>>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center >>>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations") >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@...otecs.ru> >>> >>> Hi Gavrilov, >>> >> >> Hi Simon, thank you for your answer. >> >>> although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code, >>> I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when >>> it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine. >>> >>> What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value. >>> >>> 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this: >>> >>> ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...) >>> if (ret < 0) { >>> nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires"); >>> return NF_DROP; >>> } >>> >>> But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked, >>> and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in >>> practice. >>> >>> I suspect this should be: >>> >>> ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...) >>> if (!ret) { >>> nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires"); >>> return NF_DROP; >>> } >>> >> >> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the >> parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set. >> In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a >> normal situation >> In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP, >> or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as >> unnecessary. > > Sorry, I think I misunderstood the intention of your patch earlier. > > Do I (now) understand correctly that you are proposing a tristate? > > a) return 1 if value is found; *val is set > b) return 0 if value is not found; *val is unchanged > c) return -1 on error; *val is undefined Yes, it seems to me that this was originally intended.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists