From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>,
Max Schulze <max.schulze@online.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: Return unsigned value for nla_len()
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:45:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231201104505.44ec5c89@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202312010953.BEDC06111@keescook>
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:17:02 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > -static inline int nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
> > > +static inline u16 nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
> > > {
> > > - return nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN;
> > > + return nla->nla_len > NLA_HDRLEN ? nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN : 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Note the the NLA_HDRLEN is the length of struct nlattr.
> > I mean of the @nla object that gets passed in as argument here.
> > So accepting that nla->nla_len may be < NLA_HDRLEN means
> > that we are okay with dereferencing a truncated object...
> >
> > We can consider making the return unsinged without the condition maybe?
>
> Yes, if we did it without the check, it'd do "less" damage on
> wrap-around. (i.e. off by U16_MAX instead off by INT_MAX).
>
> But I'd like to understand: what's the harm in adding the clamp? The
> changes to the assembly are tiny:
> https://godbolt.org/z/Ecvbzn1a1
Hm, I wonder if my explanation was unclear or you disagree..
This is the structure:
struct nlattr {
__u16 nla_len; // attr len, incl. this header
__u16 nla_type;
};
and (removing no-op wrappers):
#define NLA_HDRLEN sizeof(struct nlattr)
So going back to the code:
return nla->nla_len > NLA_HDRLEN ? nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN...
We are reading nla->nla_len, which is the first 2 bytes of the structure.
And then we check if the structure is... there?
If we don't trust that struct nlattr which gets passed here is at least
NLA_HDRLEN (4B) then why do we think it's safe to read nla_len (the
first 2B of it)?
That's why I was pointing at nla_ok(). nla_ok() takes the size of the
buffer / message as an arg, so that it can also check if looking at
nla_len itself is not going to be an OOB access. 99% of netlink buffers
we parse come from user space. So it's not like someone could have
mis-initialized the nla_len in the kernel and being graceful is helpful.
The extra conditional is just a minor thing. The major thing is that
unless I'm missing something the check makes me go 🤨️
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-01 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-30 20:01 [PATCH] netlink: Return unsigned value for nla_len() Kees Cook
2023-11-30 20:11 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-12-01 1:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-12-01 7:45 ` Johannes Berg
2023-12-01 18:17 ` Kees Cook
2023-12-01 18:45 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2023-12-02 4:39 ` Kees Cook
2023-12-02 5:16 ` Jakub Kicinski
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=20231201104505.44ec5c89@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=max.schulze@online.de \
--cc=mwalle@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com \
/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).