netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/3] net: prevent rewrite of msg_name in sock

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: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:36 -0700
From: Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dborkman@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/3] net: prevent rewrite of msg_name in sock_sendmsg()

Sounds like a plan.

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:55 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You used this short-hand to avoid having to update all callers to sock_sendmsg to __kernel_sendmsg?
> >
> > Sorry about that, I misunderstood the intent. I'm fine with
> > introducing a new function, doing the address copy there, and
> > replacing all calls to sock_sendmsg with this wrapper. One thought on
> > the naming though,
> >
> > To me the "__" prefix seems out of place for a function meant as a
> > public interface. Some possible alternatives:
> >
> > 1) Rename the current kernel_sendmsg() function to
> > kernel_sendmsg_kvec() and name  our new function kernel_sendmsg(). To
> > me this makes some sense, considering the new function is the more
> > generic of the two, and the existing kernel_sendmsg() specifically
> > accepts "struct kvec".
> > 2) Same as #1, but drop the old kernel_sendmsg() function instead of
> > renaming it. Adapt all calls to the old kernel_sendmsg() to fit the
> > new kernel_sendmsg() (this amounts to adding a
> > iov_iter_kvec(&msg->msg_iter, ITER_SOURCE, vec, num, size); call in
> > each spot before kernel_sendmsg() is called.
>
> Thanks. Fair points.
>
> Of the two proposals, I think the first is preferable, as it avoids
> some non-trivial open coding in multiple callers.