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: <ZFJX3KLkcu4nON7l@t14s.localdomain> Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 09:47:24 -0300 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> To: Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@...otecs.ru> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>, "lucien.xin@...il.com" <lucien.xin@...il.com>, "lvc-project@...uxtesting.org" <lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "nhorman@...driver.com" <nhorman@...driver.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "simon.horman@...igine.com" <simon.horman@...igine.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] sctp: fix a potential buffer overflow in sctp_sched_set_sched() On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:08:17AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote: > >> This unnecessary test confuses a reader like sched could be over > >> SCTP_SS_MAX here. > > > > It's actualy better to keep the test here and remove it from the > > callers: they don't need to know the specifics, and further new calls > > will be protected already. > > > > I agree that the check should be removed, but I think it's better to > keep the test on the calling side, because params->assoc_value is set as > the default "stream schedule" for the socket and it needs to be checked too. > > static int sctp_setsockopt_scheduler(..., struct sctp_assoc_value > *params, ...) > { > ... > if (params->assoc_id == SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC || > params->assoc_id == SCTP_ALL_ASSOC) > sp->default_ss = params->assoc_value; > ... > } Good point. But then, don't remove the check. Instead, just fix that ordering and make it less confusing. Otherwise you will be really making it prone to the OOB if a new call gets added that doesn't validate the parameter. Thanks, Marcelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists