From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: socket: fix a missing-check bug Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20181018.164350.528381990407930636.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1539873406-5967-1-git-send-email-wang6495@umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kjlu@umn.edu, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: wang6495@umn.edu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1539873406-5967-1-git-send-email-wang6495@umn.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Wenwen Wang Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:36:46 -0500 > In ethtool_ioctl(), the ioctl command 'ethcmd' is checked through a switch > statement to see whether it is necessary to pre-process the ethtool > structure, because, as mentioned in the comment, the structure > ethtool_rxnfc is defined with padding. If yes, a user-space buffer 'rxnfc' > is allocated through compat_alloc_user_space(). One thing to note here is > that, if 'ethcmd' is ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLALL, the size of the buffer 'rxnfc' is > partially determined by 'rule_cnt', which is actually acquired from the > user-space buffer 'compat_rxnfc', i.e., 'compat_rxnfc->rule_cnt', through > get_user(). After 'rxnfc' is allocated, the data in the original user-space > buffer 'compat_rxnfc' is then copied to 'rxnfc' through copy_in_user(), > including the 'rule_cnt' field. However, after this copy, no check is > re-enforced on 'rxnfc->rule_cnt'. So it is possible that a malicious user > race to change the value in the 'compat_rxnfc->rule_cnt' between these two > copies. Through this way, the attacker can bypass the previous check on > 'rule_cnt' and inject malicious data. This can cause undefined behavior of > the kernel and introduce potential security risk. > > This patch avoids the above issue via copying the value acquired by > get_user() to 'rxnfc->rule_cn', if 'ethcmd' is ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLALL. > > Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang This isn't pretty, but I can't come up with a better fix. Note that we check and validate the rule count value even a third time when we copy the rules back out to userspace. Applied and queued up for -stable, thank you.