From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: cleanly handle kernel vs user buffers for ->msg_control
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 18:09:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200513160938.GA22381@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c88897b9-7afb-a6f6-08f1-5aaa36631a25@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:41:57AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > + * recv* side when msg_control_is_user is set, msg_control is the kernel
> > + * buffer used for all other cases.
> > + */
> > + union {
> > + void *msg_control;
> > + void __user *msg_control_user;
> > + };
> > + bool msg_control_is_user : 1;
>
> Adding a field in this structure seems dangerous.
>
> Some users of 'struct msghdr ' define their own struct on the stack,
> and are unaware of this new mandatory field.
>
> This bit contains garbage, crashes are likely to happen ?
>
> Look at IPV6_2292PKTOPTIONS for example.
I though of that, an that is why the field is structured as-is. The idea
is that the field only matters if:
(1) we are in the recvmsg and friends path, and
(2) msg_control is non-zero
I went through the places that initialize msg_control to find any spot
that would need an annotation. The IPV6_2292PKTOPTIONS sockopt doesn't
need one as it is using the msghdr in sendmsg-like context.
That being said while I did the audit I'd appreciate another look from
people that know the networking code better than me of course.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-13 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-11 11:59 improve msg_control kernel vs user pointer handling Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-11 11:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] net: add a CMSG_USER_DATA macro Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-12 8:28 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2020-05-13 6:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-11 11:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/scm: cleanup scm_detach_fds Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 9:29 ` Ido Schimmel
2020-05-13 9:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 9:58 ` Ido Schimmel
2020-05-13 10:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 10:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 10:31 ` Ido Schimmel
2020-05-11 11:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] net: cleanly handle kernel vs user buffers for ->msg_control Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 15:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2020-05-13 16:09 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-05-13 16:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2020-05-13 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-12 0:00 ` improve msg_control kernel vs user pointer handling David Miller
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=20200513160938.GA22381@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).