netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/rose: prevent integer overflows in rose

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: <f5a76ca2-33cd-471d-8997-797a9a070804@fintech.ru>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 04:37:59 -0800
From: Nikita Zhandarovich <n.zhandarovich@...tech.ru>
To: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>, David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	<linux-hams@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>,
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/rose: prevent integer overflows in
 rose_setsockopt()

Hello,

On 1/15/25 18:04, Su Hui wrote:
> On 2025/1/16 07:29, David Laight wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 08:42:20 -0800
>> Nikita Zhandarovich <n.zhandarovich@...tech.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> In case of possible unpredictably large arguments passed to
>>> rose_setsockopt() and multiplied by extra values on top of that,
>>> integer overflows may occur.
>>>
>>> Do the safest minimum and fix these issues by checking the
>>> contents of 'opt' and returning -EINVAL if they are too large. Also,
>>> switch to unsigned int and remove useless check for negative 'opt'
>>> in ROSE_IDLE case.
>>>
>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with static
>>> analysis tool SVACE.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Zhandarovich <n.zhandarovich@...tech.ru>
>>> ---
>>>   net/rose/af_rose.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
>>> index 59050caab65c..72c65d938a15 100644
>>> --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
>>> +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c
>>> @@ -397,15 +397,15 @@ static int rose_setsockopt(struct socket *sock,
>>> int level, int optname,
>>>   {
>>>       struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
>>>       struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(sk);
>>> -    int opt;
>>> +    unsigned int opt;
>>>         if (level != SOL_ROSE)
>>>           return -ENOPROTOOPT;
>>>   -    if (optlen < sizeof(int))
>>> +    if (optlen < sizeof(unsigned int))
>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>>   -    if (copy_from_sockptr(&opt, optval, sizeof(int)))
>>> +    if (copy_from_sockptr(&opt, optval, sizeof(unsigned int)))
>> Shouldn't all those be 'sizeof (opt)' ?
>>
>>     David
>>

Agreed, but my thinking was to keep it somewhat symmetrical to other
similar checks in XXX_setsockopt(). For instance, in net/ax25/af_ax25.c,
courtesy of commit 7b75c5a8c41 ("net: pass a sockptr_t into
->setsockopt") an explicit type is used.

I don't mind sending v2, as it would be a bit neater.

>>>           return -EFAULT;
>>>         switch (optname) {
>>> @@ -414,31 +414,31 @@ static int rose_setsockopt(struct socket *sock,
>>> int level, int optname,
>>>           return 0;
>>>         case ROSE_T1:
>>> -        if (opt < 1)
>>> +        if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ)
> 
> 'rose->t1' is unsigned long, how about 'opt > ULONG_MAX / HZ' ?
> 
> BTW, I think only in 32bit or 16bit machine when 'sizeof(int) ==
> sizeof(unsigned long)',
> this integer overflows may occur..
> 
> Su Hui
> 

Here I was influenced by commits dc35616e6c29 ("netrom: fix api breakage
in nr_setsockopt()") and 9371937092d5 ("ax25: uninitialized variable in
ax25_setsockopt()") that essentially state that we only copy 4 bytes
from userspace so opt being ulong is not desired. Even if the result of
* HZ ends up stored in ulong 'XXX->t1'.

I may be wrong but I think same principle applies to rose_setsockopt().

All we need to do here is to enable a sanity check that there is no
int/uint overflow in right hand expression before the result gets stored
in ulong.

>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>           rose->t1 = opt * HZ;
>>>           return 0;
>>>         case ROSE_T2:
>>> -        if (opt < 1)
>>> +        if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ)
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>           rose->t2 = opt * HZ;
>>>           return 0;
>>>         case ROSE_T3:
>>> -        if (opt < 1)
>>> +        if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ)
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>           rose->t3 = opt * HZ;
>>>           return 0;
>>>         case ROSE_HOLDBACK:
>>> -        if (opt < 1)
>>> +        if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ)
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>           rose->hb = opt * HZ;
>>>           return 0;
>>>         case ROSE_IDLE:
>>> -        if (opt < 0)
>>> +        if (opt > UINT_MAX / (60 * HZ))
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>           rose->idle = opt * 60 * HZ;
>>>           return 0;
>>>

Regards,
Nikita