netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: mctp: Don't access ifa

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0decca5d2af88ccbe51b7e9c88a258bd8cc6c6e8.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 10:13:19 +0800
From: Matt Johnston <matt@...econstruct.com.au>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>, "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, 
 syzbot+e76d52dadc089b9d197f@...kaller.appspotmail.com, 
 syzbot+1065a199625a388fce60@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: mctp: Don't access ifa_index when missing

On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 18:41 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2025 09:24:29 +0800 Matt Johnston wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 18:06 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 05 May 2025 17:05:12 +0800 Matt Johnston wrote:  
> > > > +		/* Userspace programs providing AF_MCTP must be expecting ifa_index filter
> > > > +		 * behaviour, as will those setting strict_check.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (hdr->ifa_family == AF_MCTP || cb->strict_check)
> > > > +			ifindex = hdr->ifa_index;  
> > > 
> > > The use of cb->strict_check is a bit strange here. I could be wrong but
> > > I though cb->strict_check should only impact validation. Not be used
> > > for changing behavior.  
> > 
> > It was following behaviour of inet_dump_addr()/inet6_dump_addr() where
> > filtering is applied if strict check is set.
> > I don't have strong opinion whether strict_check makes sense for MCTP though
> > - it depends on
> > whether userspace expects strict_check to apply to all families, or just
> > inet4/inet6.
> 
> I see your point. And existing user space may expect filtering
> even if !cb->strict_check but family is set to AF_MCTP?

Yes, given mctp_dump_addrinfo() has always applied a filter, mctp-specific
programs likely expect that behaviour.

> > > If you have a reason to believe all user space passes a valid header -
> > > how about we just return an error if message is too short?
> > > IPv4 and IPv6 seem to return an error if message is short and
> > > cb->strict_check, so they are more strict. MCTP doesn't have a ton of
> > > legacy user space, we don't have to be lenient at all. My intuition
> > > would be to always act like IP acts under cb->strict_check  
> > 
> > The problem is that programs will pass ifa_family=AF_UNSPEC with a short
> > header, no strict_check 
> > (eg busybox "ip addr show").
> > An AF_UNSPEC request will reach mctp_dump_addrinfo(), so we don't want that
> > returning an error.
> > Maybe mctp_dump_addrinfo() should ignore AF_UNSPEC requests entirely, and
> > only populate
> > a response when ifa_family=AF_MCTP. That would be OK for the existing mctp
> > userspace programs 
> > I know about, though there may be other users that are calling with AF_UNSPEC
> > but filtering 
> > userspace-side for AF_MCTP addresses.
> 
> Right, and looks like IP filters with strict_check regardless of family.
> So we'd be even further away from that behavior if we never filtered
> with AF_UNSPEC.