From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C51C4332F for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346320AbjKBK2v (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2023 06:28:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49772 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1345942AbjKBK2u (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2023 06:28:50 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:237:300::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94053128; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 03:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qyUwQ-0006r4-7q; Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:28:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:28:46 +0100 From: Florian Westphal To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso , Florian Westphal , Harshit Mogalapalli Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: nf_tables: prevent OOB access in nft_byteorder_eval Message-ID: <20231102102846.GE6174@breakpoint.cc> References: <20230705201232.GG3751@breakpoint.cc> <20230705210535.943194-1-cascardo@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Dan Carpenter wrote: > This patch is correct, but shouldn't we fix the code for 64 bit writes > as well? Care to send a patch? > net/netfilter/nft_byteorder.c > 26 void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, > 27 struct nft_regs *regs, > 28 const struct nft_pktinfo *pkt) > 29 { > 30 const struct nft_byteorder *priv = nft_expr_priv(expr); > 31 u32 *src = ®s->data[priv->sreg]; > 32 u32 *dst = ®s->data[priv->dreg]; > 33 u16 *s16, *d16; > 34 unsigned int i; > 35 > 36 s16 = (void *)src; > 37 d16 = (void *)dst; > 38 > 39 switch (priv->size) { > 40 case 8: { > 41 u64 src64; > 42 > 43 switch (priv->op) { > 44 case NFT_BYTEORDER_NTOH: > 45 for (i = 0; i < priv->len / 8; i++) { > 46 src64 = nft_reg_load64(&src[i]); > 47 nft_reg_store64(&dst[i], > 48 be64_to_cpu((__force __be64)src64)); > > We're writing 8 bytes, then moving forward 4 bytes and writing 8 bytes > again. Each subsequent write over-writes 4 bytes from the previous > write. Yes. I can't think if a case where we'd do two swaps back-to-back, which is probably the reason noone noticed this so far.