netdev - Re: [PATCH] sock: Use unsafe_memcpy() for 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240216220629.71672-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:06:29 -0800
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: <alexander@...alicyn.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
	<leitao@...ian.org>, <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sock: Use unsafe_memcpy() for sock_copy()

From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:44:24 -0800
> While testing for places where zero-sized destinations were still
> showing up in the kernel, sock_copy() was found, which is using very
> specific memcpy() offsets for both avoiding a portion of struct sock,
> and copying beyond the end of it (since struct sock is really just a
> common header before the protocol-specific allocation). Instead of
> trying to unravel this historical lack of container_of(), just switch
> to unsafe_memcpy(), since that's effectively what was happening already
> (memcpy() wasn't checking 0-sized destinations while the code base was
> being converted away from fake flexible arrays).
> 
> Avoid the following false positive warning with future changes to
> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE:
> 
>   memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 3068) of destination "&nsk->__sk_common.skc_dontcopy_end" at net/core/sock.c:2057 (size 0)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

I confirmed unsafe_memcpy() is just memcpy() without fortified checks.

Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>


> ---
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  net/core/sock.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 0a7f46c37f0c..b7ea358eb18f 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -2053,8 +2053,9 @@ static void sock_copy(struct sock *nsk, const struct sock *osk)
>  
>  	memcpy(nsk, osk, offsetof(struct sock, sk_dontcopy_begin));
>  
> -	memcpy(&nsk->sk_dontcopy_end, &osk->sk_dontcopy_end,
> -	       prot->obj_size - offsetof(struct sock, sk_dontcopy_end));
> +	unsafe_memcpy(&nsk->sk_dontcopy_end, &osk->sk_dontcopy_end,
> +		      prot->obj_size - offsetof(struct sock, sk_dontcopy_end),
> +		      /* alloc is larger than struct, see sk_prot_alloc() */);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK
>  	nsk->sk_security = sptr;
> -- 
> 2.34.1