From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: doruk@0sec.ai
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
david@ixit.cz, oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev,
david.laight.linux@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 14:48:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260710134850.1615092-1-horms@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260705115607.60844-1-doruk@0sec.ai>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
Full review at: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/
---
nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers
The commit adds pointer-based bounds to nfc_llcp_parse_gb_tlv(),
nfc_llcp_parse_connection_tlv() and nfc_llcp_connect_sn(), replacing
the previous u8 offset walk which could wrap and produce an unbounded
TLV loop. It cites the size_t underflow of "skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE"
as one of the failure modes it wants to close.
> diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_commands.c b/net/nfc/llcp_commands.c
> index 291f26facbf3..1a0a2f4aca70 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/llcp_commands.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_commands.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -243,17 +246,21 @@ int nfc_llcp_parse_connection_tlv(struct nfc_llcp_sock *sock,
> const u8 *tlv_array, u16 tlv_array_len)
> {
> const u8 *tlv = tlv_array;
> - u8 type, length, offset = 0;
> + const u8 *tlv_end = tlv_array + tlv_array_len;
> + u8 type, length;
>
> pr_debug("TLV array length %d\n", tlv_array_len);
>
> if (sock == NULL)
> return -ENOTCONN;
>
> - while (offset < tlv_array_len) {
> + while (tlv + 2 < tlv_end) {
> type = tlv[0];
> length = tlv[1];
>
> + if (tlv + 2 + length > tlv_end)
> + break;
> +
[High]
Is the size_t underflow the commit message mentions actually addressed
for nfc_llcp_parse_connection_tlv()?
The two callers, nfc_llcp_recv_connect() and nfc_llcp_recv_cc() in
net/nfc/llcp_core.c, still compute the length at the call site as
skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE and hand it to the parser:
nfc_llcp_parse_connection_tlv(new_sock, &skb->data[LLCP_HEADER_SIZE],
skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE);
and
nfc_llcp_parse_connection_tlv(llcp_sock, &skb->data[LLCP_HEADER_SIZE],
skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE);
If skb->len is 0 or 1, that subtraction (size_t at the call site,
truncated to the u16 tlv_array_len parameter) becomes 0xFFFE or 0xFFFF.
Inside the parser, that value now feeds:
const u8 *tlv_end = tlv_array + tlv_array_len;
while (tlv + 2 < tlv_end) {
...
if (tlv + 2 + length > tlv_end)
break;
so tlv_end points roughly 64 KiB past &skb->data[LLCP_HEADER_SIZE] and
neither the loop condition nor the per-TLV check catches the walk
leaving the skb.
The commit message calls this out as one of the motivations:
"Dropping the u8 offset also removes the wrap, and for very short
connect frames this avoids the size_t underflow of
'skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE'."
That mitigation is applied inside nfc_llcp_connect_sn() by using
skb_tail_pointer(skb) directly, but the equivalent change is not made
for the connection TLV path. nfc_llcp_rx_skb() has no minimum-length
guard, so a received CONNECT or CC PDU with skb->len < LLCP_HEADER_SIZE
still reaches these callers.
Would it make sense to either guard skb->len >= LLCP_HEADER_SIZE
before the two call sites, or take the same skb_tail_pointer() based
approach used in nfc_llcp_connect_sn() so the parser derives its bound
from the skb rather than from an untrusted subtraction?
> diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> index dc65c719f35f..5e1881199238 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> @@ -849,13 +849,16 @@ static struct nfc_llcp_sock *nfc_llcp_sock_get_sn(struct nfc_llcp_local *local,
> static const u8 *nfc_llcp_connect_sn(const struct sk_buff *skb, size_t *sn_len)
> {
> u8 type, length;
> - const u8 *tlv = &skb->data[2];
> - size_t tlv_array_len = skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE, offset = 0;
> + const u8 *tlv = &skb->data[LLCP_HEADER_SIZE];
> + const u8 *tlv_end = skb_tail_pointer(skb);
>
> - while (offset < tlv_array_len) {
> + while (tlv + 2 < tlv_end) {
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-10 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-05 11:56 [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers Doruk Tan Ozturk
2026-07-10 13:48 ` Simon Horman [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=20260710134850.1615092-1-horms@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=david@ixit.cz \
--cc=doruk@0sec.ai \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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