Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t

To: David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-hams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-hams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "dccp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dccp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-decnet-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-decnet-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-wpan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-wpan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mptcp@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <mptcp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "rds-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rds-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tipc-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tipc-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-x25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-x25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:17:28 +0200
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:07 AM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> > Sent: 27 July 2020 17:24
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > Maybe sockptr_advance should have some safety checks and sometimes
> > > return -EFAULT? Or you should always use the implementation where
> > > being a kernel address is an explicit bit of sockptr_t, rather than
> > > being implicit?
> >
> > I already have a patch to use access_ok to check the whole range in
> > init_user_sockptr.
> That doesn't make (much) difference to the code paths that ignore
> the user-supplied length.
> OTOH doing the user/kernel check on the base address (not an
> incremented one) means that the correct copy function is always
> selected.

Right, I had the same reaction in reading this, but actually, his code
gets rid of the sockptr_advance stuff entirely and never mutates, so
even though my point about attacking those pointers was missed, the
code does the better thing now -- checking the base address and never
mutating the pointer. So I think we're good.

> Perhaps the functions should all be passed a 'const sockptr_t'.
> The typedef could be made 'const' - requiring non-const items
> explicitly use the union/struct itself.

I was thinking the same, but just by making the pointers inside the
struct const. However, making the whole struct const via the typedef
is a much better idea. That'd probably require changing the signature
of init_user_sockptr a bit, which would be fine, but indeed I think
this would be a very positive change.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>