From: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Robert Morris <rtm@mit.edu>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p/net: fix improper handling of bogus negative read/write replies
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 16:29:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4171850.H1WhmIdAfj@silver> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241222-9p_unsigned_rw-v1-1-3ea971d200cb@codewreck.org>
On Sunday, December 22, 2024 2:57:48 PM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> In p9_client_write() and p9_client_read_once(), if the server
> incorrectly replies with success but a negative write/read count then we
> would consider written (negative) <= rsize (positive) because both
> variables were signed.
>
> Make variables unsigned to avoid this problem.
>
> The reproducer linked below now fails with the following error instead
> of a null pointer deref:
> 9pnet: bogus RWRITE count (4294967295 > 3)
>
> Reported-by: Robert Morris <rtm@mit.edu>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/16271.1734448631@26-5-164.dynamic.csail.mit.edu
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
> ---
> net/9p/client.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
> index 09f8ced9f8bb..c290d96e1bb3 100644
> --- a/net/9p/client.c
> +++ b/net/9p/client.c
> @@ -1548,7 +1548,8 @@ p9_client_read_once(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *to,
> struct p9_client *clnt = fid->clnt;
> struct p9_req_t *req;
> int count = iov_iter_count(to);
> - int rsize, received, non_zc = 0;
> + u32 rsize, received;
> + bool non_zc = false;
> char *dataptr;
>
> *err = 0;
> @@ -1571,7 +1572,7 @@ p9_client_read_once(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *to,
> 0, 11, "dqd", fid->fid,
> offset, rsize);
> } else {
> - non_zc = 1;
> + non_zc = true;
> req = p9_client_rpc(clnt, P9_TREAD, "dqd", fid->fid, offset,
> rsize);
> }
> @@ -1592,11 +1593,11 @@ p9_client_read_once(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *to,
> return 0;
> }
> if (rsize < received) {
> - pr_err("bogus RREAD count (%d > %d)\n", received, rsize);
> + pr_err("bogus RREAD count (%u > %u)\n", received, rsize);
> received = rsize;
Does `received = rsize` make sense here? I would rather do `received = 0` to
prevent copying garbage below, that would be ignored by caller on error case
anyway.
> }
>
> - p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RREAD count %d\n", received);
> + p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RREAD count %u\n", received);
>
> if (non_zc) {
> int n = copy_to_iter(dataptr, received, to);
> @@ -1623,9 +1624,9 @@ p9_client_write(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *from, int *err)
> *err = 0;
>
> while (iov_iter_count(from)) {
> - int count = iov_iter_count(from);
> - int rsize = fid->iounit;
> - int written;
> + size_t count = iov_iter_count(from);
> + size_t rsize = fid->iounit;
I think that would break 64-bit big-endian systems, as `rsize` is passed via
format below as "d" (32-bit) type.
> + u32 written;
>
> if (!rsize || rsize > clnt->msize - P9_IOHDRSZ)
> rsize = clnt->msize - P9_IOHDRSZ;
> @@ -1633,7 +1634,7 @@ p9_client_write(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *from, int *err)
> if (count < rsize)
> rsize = count;
>
> - p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, ">>> TWRITE fid %d offset %llu count %d (/%d)\n",
> + p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, ">>> TWRITE fid %d offset %llu count %zu (/%zu)\n",
> fid->fid, offset, rsize, count);
>
> /* Don't bother zerocopy for small IO (< 1024) */
> @@ -1659,11 +1660,11 @@ p9_client_write(struct p9_fid *fid, u64 offset, struct iov_iter *from, int *err)
> break;
> }
> if (rsize < written) {
> - pr_err("bogus RWRITE count (%d > %d)\n", written, rsize);
> + pr_err("bogus RWRITE count (%u > %zu)\n", written, rsize);
> written = rsize;
> }
>
> - p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RWRITE count %d\n", written);
> + p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RWRITE count %u\n", written);
>
> p9_req_put(clnt, req);
> iov_iter_revert(from, count - written - iov_iter_count(from));
> @@ -2098,7 +2099,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(p9_client_xattrcreate);
>
> int p9_client_readdir(struct p9_fid *fid, char *data, u32 count, u64 offset)
> {
> - int err, rsize, non_zc = 0;
> + int err, non_zc = 0;
> + u32 rsize;
> struct p9_client *clnt;
> struct p9_req_t *req;
> char *dataptr;
> @@ -2142,11 +2144,11 @@ int p9_client_readdir(struct p9_fid *fid, char *data, u32 count, u64 offset)
> goto free_and_error;
> }
> if (rsize < count) {
> - pr_err("bogus RREADDIR count (%d > %d)\n", count, rsize);
> + pr_err("bogus RREADDIR count (%u > %u)\n", count, rsize);
> count = rsize;
> }
>
> - p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RREADDIR count %d\n", count);
> + p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_9P, "<<< RREADDIR count %u\n", count);
>
> if (non_zc)
> memmove(data, dataptr, count);
>
> ---
> base-commit: cdd30ebb1b9f36159d66f088b61aee264e649d7a
> change-id: 20241222-9p_unsigned_rw-03f95da525a0
>
> Best regards,
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-22 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-22 13:57 [PATCH] 9p/net: fix improper handling of bogus negative read/write replies Dominique Martinet
2024-12-22 15:29 ` Christian Schoenebeck [this message]
2025-03-16 21:37 ` Dominique Martinet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4171850.H1WhmIdAfj@silver \
--to=linux_oss@crudebyte.com \
--cc=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
--cc=ericvh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucho@ionkov.net \
--cc=rtm@mit.edu \
--cc=v9fs@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.