netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: netlink: prevent potential integer overflow in nlmsg

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: <20250124080210.23208829@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:02:10 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: netlink: prevent potential integer overflow in
 nlmsg_new()

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:35:24 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 06:24:27AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 16:49:17 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:  
> > > The "payload" variable is type size_t, however the nlmsg_total_size()
> > > function will a few bytes to it and then truncate the result to type
> > > int.  That means that if "payload" is more than UINT_MAX the alloc_skb()
> > > function might allocate a buffer which is smaller than intended.  
> > 
> > Is there a bug, or is this theoretical?  
> 
> The rule here is that if we pass something very close to UINT_MAX to
> nlmsg_new() the it leads to an integer overflow.  I'm not a networking
> expert.  The caller that concerned me was:
> 
> *** 1 ***
> 
> net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c
>   1762                  /* Error in restore/batch mode: send back lineno */
>   1763                  struct nlmsghdr *rep, *nlh = nlmsg_hdr(skb);
>   1764                  struct sk_buff *skb2;
>   1765                  struct nlmsgerr *errmsg;
>   1766                  size_t payload = min(SIZE_MAX,
>   1767                                       sizeof(*errmsg) + nlmsg_len(nlh));
> 
> I don't know the limits of limits of nlmsg_len() here.

Practically speaking the limits are fairly small. The nlh comes from
user's request / sendmsg() call. So the user must have prepared 
a message of at least that len, and kernel must had been able to
kvmalloc() a linear buffer large enough to copy that message in.

> The min(SIZE_MAX is what scared me.  That was added to silence a Smatch
> warning.  :P  It should be fixed or removed.

Yeah, that ip_set code looks buggy. Mostly because we use @payload
for the nlmsg_put() call, but then raw nlh->nlmsg_len for memcpy() :S

>   1768                  int min_len = nlmsg_total_size(sizeof(struct nfgenmsg));
>   1769                  struct nlattr *cda[IPSET_ATTR_CMD_MAX + 1];
>   1770                  struct nlattr *cmdattr;
>   1771                  u32 *errline;
>   1772  
>   1773                  skb2 = nlmsg_new(payload, GFP_KERNEL);
>   1774                  if (!skb2)
>   1775                          return -ENOMEM;
> 
> *** 2 ***
> There is similar code in netlink_ack() where the payload comes from
> nlmsg_len(nlh).

This one is correct. Each piece of the message is nlmsg_put()
individually, which does bounds checking. So if the allocation 
of the skb was faulty and the skb is shorter than we expected 
we'll just error out on the put.

> *** 3 ***
> 
> There is a potential issue in queue_userspace_packet() when we call:
> 
> 	len = upcall_msg_size(upcall_info, hlen - cutlen, ...
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	user_skb = genlmsg_new(len, GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> It's possible that hlen is less than cutlen.  (That's a separate bug,
> I'll send a fix for it).

Ack.

In general IMVHO the check in nlmsg_new() won't be too effective.
The callers can overflow their local message size calculation.
Not to mention that the size calculation is often inexact.
So using nla_put() and checking error codes is the best way
to prevent security issues..