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: <b6ed0ef1346363f11ddc7bb1c390a5f03f3a6b89.camel@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:24:01 +0200 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, davem@...emloft.net, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dborkman@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: prevent address overwrite in connect() and sendmsg() On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 10:02 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 5:09 PM Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > > If we take this path, it could be a single patch. The subsystem > > > maintainers should be CC:ed so that they can (N)ACK it. > > > > > > But I do not mean to ask to split it up and test each one separately. > > > > > > The change from sock->ops->connect to kernel_connect is certainly > > > trivial enough that compile testing should suffice. > > > > Ack. Thanks for clarifying. > > > > > The only question is whether we should pursue your original patch and > > > accept that this will continue, or one that improves the situation, > > > but touches more files and thus has a higher risk of merge conflicts. > > > > > > I'd like to give others some time to chime in. I've given my opinion, > > > but it's only one. > > > > > > I'd like to give others some time to chime in. I've given my opinion, > > > but it's only one. > > > > Sounds good. I'll wait to hear others' opinions on the best path forward. > > No other comments so far. > > My hunch is that a short list of these changes > > ``` > @@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ static int kernel_bindconnect(struct socket *s, > struct sockaddr *laddr, > if (rv < 0) > return rv; > > - rv = s->ops->connect(s, raddr, size, flags); > + rv = kernel_connect(s, raddr, size, flags); > ``` > > is no more invasive than your proposed patch, and gives a more robust outcome. > > Please take a stab. I'm sorry for the late feedback. For the records, I agree the cleanest fix described above should be attempted first. Thanks, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists