[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a26cd1bafb22b16eab3868255706d44fa4f255d.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 23:02:35 +0100
From: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Airlie
<airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/ppp: copy userspace array safely
Hallo Al,
On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 20:09 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 08:19:15PM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > In ppp_generic.c memdup_user() is utilized to copy a userspace
> > array.
> > This is done without an overflow check.
> >
> > Use the new wrapper memdup_array_user() to copy the array more
> > safely.
>
> > fprog.len = uprog->len;
> > - fprog.filter = memdup_user(uprog->filter,
> > - uprog->len * sizeof(struct
> > sock_filter));
> > + fprog.filter = memdup_array_user(uprog->filter,
> > + uprog->len, sizeof(struct
> > sock_filter));
>
> Far be it from me to discourage security theat^Whardening, but
a bit about the background here:
(tl;dr: No reason to worry, I am not one of those security fanatics. In
fact, I worked for 12 months with those people with some mixed
experiences ^^')
(btw, note that the commit says 'safety', not 'security')
We introduced those wrappers to string.h hoping they will be useful.
Now that they're merged, I quickly wanted to establish them as the
standard for copying user-arrays, ideally in the current merge window.
Because its convenient, easy to read and, at times, safer.
I just want to help out a bit in the kernel, clean up here and there;
it's not yet the primary task assigned to me by my employer. Thus, I
quickly prepared 13 patches today implementing the wrapper. You'll find
the others on LKML. Getting to:
>
> struct sock_fprog { /* Required for SO_ATTACH_FILTER. */
> unsigned short len; /* Number of filter blocks */
> struct sock_filter __user *filter;
> };
>
> struct sock_filter { /* Filter block */
> __u16 code; /* Actual filter code */
> __u8 jt; /* Jump true */
> __u8 jf; /* Jump false */
> __u32 k; /* Generic multiuse field */
> };
>
> so you might want to mention that overflow in question would have to
> be
> in multiplying an untrusted 16bit value by 8...
>
I indeed did not even look at that.
When it was obvious to me that fearing an overflow is ridiculous, I
actually adjusted the commit-message, see for example here: [1]
I just didn't see it in ppp. Maybe I should have looked more
intensively for all 13 patches. But we'll get there, that's what v2 and
v3 are for :)
P.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231102192402.53721-2-pstanner@redhat.com/
PS: Security != Safety
Powered by blists - more mailing lists