[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231130172520.5a56ae50@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:25:20 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Jeff
Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>, Max
Schulze <max.schulze@...ine.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: Return unsigned value for nla_len()
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:01:01 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> This has the additional benefit of being defensive in the face of nlattr
> corruption or logic errors (i.e. nla_len being set smaller than
> NLA_HDRLEN).
As Johannes predicted I'd rather not :(
The callers should put the nlattr thru nla_ok() during validation
(nla_validate()), or walking (nla_for_each_* call nla_ok()).
> -static inline int nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
> +static inline u16 nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
> {
> - return nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN;
> + return nla->nla_len > NLA_HDRLEN ? nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN : 0;
> }
Note the the NLA_HDRLEN is the length of struct nlattr.
I mean of the @nla object that gets passed in as argument here.
So accepting that nla->nla_len may be < NLA_HDRLEN means
that we are okay with dereferencing a truncated object...
We can consider making the return unsinged without the condition maybe?
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists