From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Cen Zhang (Microsoft)" <blbllhy@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xsk: reject tx_metadata_len smaller than struct xsk_tx_metadata
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:52:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260721155224.6974B1F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260720155210.34229-1-blbllhy@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [Critical] UAPI Backward Compatibility Breakage
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] UAPI ABI Compatibility Mismatch in struct xsk_tx_metadata
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH net] xsk: reject tx_metadata_len smaller than struct xsk_tx_metadata ---
commit a89522120661c494f685c71309affa610fc7ca08
Author: Cen Zhang (Microsoft) <blbllhy@gmail.com>
xsk: reject tx_metadata_len smaller than struct xsk_tx_metadata
xdp_umem_reg() validates tx_metadata_len for upper bound (<256) and
alignment (%8) but not a lower bound. xsk_skb_metadata() computes
meta = buffer - pool->tx_metadata_len then unconditionally accesses
the full 24-byte struct xsk_tx_metadata, so any value less than
sizeof(struct xsk_tx_metadata) allows an out-of-bounds read. This adds
a lower-bound check in xdp_umem_reg() to reject tx_metadata_len
values that cannot cover the full metadata struct.
> diff --git a/net/xdp/xdp_umem.c b/net/xdp/xdp_umem.c
> index 58da2f4f4397a..d16ad9d8f9197 100644
> --- a/net/xdp/xdp_umem.c
> +++ b/net/xdp/xdp_umem.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,8 @@ static int xdp_umem_reg(struct xdp_umem *umem, struct xdp_umem_reg *mr)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (mr->flags & XDP_UMEM_TX_METADATA_LEN) {
> - if (mr->tx_metadata_len >= 256 || mr->tx_metadata_len % 8)
> + if (mr->tx_metadata_len < sizeof(struct xsk_tx_metadata) ||
> + mr->tx_metadata_len >= 256 || mr->tx_metadata_len % 8)
[Severity: Critical]
Does this strict size check in xdp_umem_reg() break backward compatibility
with older userspace applications?
Older applications compiled against earlier kernel headers (where
struct xsk_tx_metadata was 16 bytes, prior to the addition of the
launch_time field) will legitimately request a tx_metadata_len of 16.
This check evaluates to 16 < 24 and unconditionally rejects these
valid requests with -EINVAL, causing registration to fail.
To safely fix the underlying KASAN out-of-bounds read, should the kernel
instead dynamically validate that pool->tx_metadata_len is large enough to
cover the fields actually requested by meta->flags at runtime in
xsk_skb_metadata(), rather than enforcing a global minimum size here?
> return -EINVAL;
> umem->tx_metadata_len = mr->tx_metadata_len;
> }
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does struct xsk_tx_metadata have an ABI
compatibility mismatch between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures?
Because __u64 has a 4-byte alignment requirement on 32-bit x86 but an 8-byte
alignment requirement on 64-bit x86, the compiler introduces 4 bytes of
implicit padding on 64-bit architectures before the launch_time field.
If a 32-bit userspace program runs on a 64-bit kernel in compat mode, it
writes launch_time to offset 12, but the 64-bit kernel reads it from offset
16 in xsk_skb_metadata(), resulting in garbage values being used for packet
transmission scheduling.
include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h:struct xsk_tx_metadata {
...
struct {
...
__u16 csum_offset;
/* XDP_TXMD_FLAGS_LAUNCH_TIME */
/* Launch time in nanosecond against the PTP HW Clock */
__u64 launch_time;
} request;
}
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260720155210.34229-1-blbllhy@gmail.com?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-20 15:52 [PATCH net] xsk: reject tx_metadata_len smaller than struct xsk_tx_metadata Cen Zhang (Microsoft)
2026-07-20 20:24 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2026-07-22 4:11 ` Cen Zhang (Microsoft)
2026-07-21 15:52 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260721155224.6974B1F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=blbllhy@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox