From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.nfschina.com (unknown [42.101.60.213]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29DB78836; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 02:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=42.101.60.213 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736993108; cv=none; b=sOzEENN3gNnrFAuHnTTPEsnzBYZpYxQ2lUEM5N7lcTUIZuzm0Wm2DArkIIV5l1IVAMUOciSa1Vx4+Evl694QYWfOmo+/Yzx/oYjnkyki/wrbOf1J4XVOb2zoovJL8JX47EtxWGLj0aB+4wm5tJo1FEYWZb7nRElU7XDYoumHbdM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736993108; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K41LxaeY5b1PJhdqsphAZteLpi5PMaWTF/rGxvUmgEQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:From:In-Reply-To: Content-Type; b=LL0kLTm9YmB+aH3RS/8hZ7eCbGAOypsiwhU7LKGm1kPCVoS7N2Go/pj/HtLDFRMl+ZBcaMUbl+tbW7E3vfcanihnuL60P5UfihDbF5MnWbKc7+kd8c0jyFEp8AAk3kesLvuIFGDp41dHmfL3ZBLNIK00hGlU3Q+ZhM7gHD6K63o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nfschina.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nfschina.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=42.101.60.213 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nfschina.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nfschina.com Received: from [172.30.20.101] (unknown [180.167.10.98]) by mail.nfschina.com (MailData Gateway V2.8.8) with ESMTPSA id B711660108120; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:04:47 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <6f79c23a-7acb-5faf-5e8d-104ca37dbb08@nfschina.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:04:47 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/rose: prevent integer overflows in rose_setsockopt() Content-Language: en-US To: David Laight , Nikita Zhandarovich Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lvc-project@linuxtesting.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org X-MD-Sfrom: suhui@nfschina.com X-MD-SrcIP: 180.167.10.98 From: Su Hui In-Reply-To: <20250115232952.1d4ef002@pumpkin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/1/16 07:29, David Laight wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 08:42:20 -0800 > Nikita Zhandarovich wrote: > >> In case of possible unpredictably large arguments passed to >> rose_setsockopt() and multiplied by extra values on top of that, >> integer overflows may occur. >> >> Do the safest minimum and fix these issues by checking the >> contents of 'opt' and returning -EINVAL if they are too large. Also, >> switch to unsigned int and remove useless check for negative 'opt' >> in ROSE_IDLE case. >> >> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with static >> analysis tool SVACE. >> >> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Nikita Zhandarovich >> --- >> net/rose/af_rose.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c >> index 59050caab65c..72c65d938a15 100644 >> --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c >> +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c >> @@ -397,15 +397,15 @@ static int rose_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, >> { >> struct sock *sk = sock->sk; >> struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(sk); >> - int opt; >> + unsigned int opt; >> >> if (level != SOL_ROSE) >> return -ENOPROTOOPT; >> >> - if (optlen < sizeof(int)) >> + if (optlen < sizeof(unsigned int)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - if (copy_from_sockptr(&opt, optval, sizeof(int))) >> + if (copy_from_sockptr(&opt, optval, sizeof(unsigned int))) > Shouldn't all those be 'sizeof (opt)' ? > > David > >> return -EFAULT; >> >> switch (optname) { >> @@ -414,31 +414,31 @@ static int rose_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, >> return 0; >> >> case ROSE_T1: >> - if (opt < 1) >> + if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ) 'rose->t1' is unsigned long, how about 'opt > ULONG_MAX / HZ' ? BTW, I think only in 32bit or 16bit machine when 'sizeof(int) == sizeof(unsigned long)', this integer overflows may occur.. Su Hui >> return -EINVAL; >> rose->t1 = opt * HZ; >> return 0; >> >> case ROSE_T2: >> - if (opt < 1) >> + if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ) >> return -EINVAL; >> rose->t2 = opt * HZ; >> return 0; >> >> case ROSE_T3: >> - if (opt < 1) >> + if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ) >> return -EINVAL; >> rose->t3 = opt * HZ; >> return 0; >> >> case ROSE_HOLDBACK: >> - if (opt < 1) >> + if (opt < 1 || opt > UINT_MAX / HZ) >> return -EINVAL; >> rose->hb = opt * HZ; >> return 0; >> >> case ROSE_IDLE: >> - if (opt < 0) >> + if (opt > UINT_MAX / (60 * HZ)) >> return -EINVAL; >> rose->idle = opt * 60 * HZ; >> return 0; >>