netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: prevent address overwrite in connect() and sendmsg()

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]

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