netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: tls: Fix possible NULL-pointer dereference in tls_decrypt_device() and tls_decrypt

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]

Message-ID: <ZTjteQgXWKXDqnos@hog>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:27:05 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@...il.com>, kuba@...nel.org
Cc: borisp@...dia.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tls: Fix possible NULL-pointer dereference in
 tls_decrypt_device() and tls_decrypt_sw()

2023-10-24, 10:17:08 +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:
> On 23/10/2023 22:03, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > 2023-10-23, 16:06:11 +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:
> > > tls_rx_one_record can be called in tls_sw_splice_read and tls_sw_read_sock
> > > with msg being NULL. This may lead to null pointer dereferences in
> > > tls_decrypt_device and tls_decrypt_sw.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by adding a check.
> > 
> > Have you actually hit this NULL dereference? I don't see how it can
> > happen.
> > 
> > darg->zc is 0 in both cases, so tls_decrypt_device doesn't call
> > skb_copy_datagram_msg.
> > 
> > tls_decrypt_sw will call tls_decrypt_sg with out_iov = &msg->msg_iter
> > (a bogus pointer but no NULL deref yet), and darg->zc is still
> > 0. tls_decrypt_sg skips the use of out_iov/out_sg and allocates
> > clear_skb, and the next place where it would use out_iov is skipped
> > because we have clear_skb.
> 
> My bad. I only checked &msg->msg_iter's address in tls_decrypt_sw and found
> it was wrong. Do I need to make a new patch to fix the harmless bogus
> pointer?

I don't think that's necessary, but maybe it would avoid people trying
to "fix" this code in the future. Jakub, WDYT?

-- 
Sabrina