LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] ipvs: Fix uninit-value in do_ip_v

To: Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] ipvs: Fix uninit-value in do_ip_vs_set_ctl()
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetFilter <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel-mentees@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:58:46 +0300 (EEST)
        Hello,

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020, Peilin Ye wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 08:57:19PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:10 PM Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > do_ip_vs_set_ctl() is referencing uninitialized stack value when `len` is
> > > zero. Fix it.
> > 
> > Which exact 'cmd' is it here?
> > 
> > I _guess_ it is one of those uninitialized in set_arglen[], which is 0.
> 
> Yes, it was `IP_VS_SO_SET_NONE`, implicitly initialized to zero.
> 
> > But if that is the case, should it be initialized to
> > sizeof(struct ip_vs_service_user) instead because ip_vs_copy_usvc_compat()
> > is called anyway. Or, maybe we should just ban len==0 case.
> 
> I see. I think the latter would be easier, but we cannot ban all of
> them, since the function does something with `IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH`, which
> is a `len == 0` case.
> 
> Maybe we do something like this?

        Yes, only IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH uses len 0. We can go with
this change but you do not need to target net tree, as the
problem is not fatal net-next works too. What happens is
that we may lookup services with random search keys which
is harmless.

        Another option is to add new block after this one:

        } else if (cmd == IP_VS_SO_SET_TIMEOUT) {
                /* Set timeout values for (tcp tcpfin udp) */
                ret = ip_vs_set_timeout(ipvs, (struct ip_vs_timeout_user *)arg);
                goto out_unlock;
        }

        such as:

        } else if (!len) {
                /* No more commands with len=0 below */
                ret = -EINVAL;
                goto out_unlock;
        }

        It give more chance for future commands to use len=0
but the drawback is that the check happens under mutex. So, I'm
fine with both versions, it is up to you to decide :)

> @@ -2432,6 +2432,8 @@ do_ip_vs_set_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, void __user 
> *user, unsigned int len)
> 
>       if (cmd < IP_VS_BASE_CTL || cmd > IP_VS_SO_SET_MAX)
>               return -EINVAL;
> +     if (len == 0 && cmd != IP_VS_SO_SET_FLUSH)
> +             return -EINVAL;
>       if (len != set_arglen[CMDID(cmd)]) {
>               IP_VS_DBG(1, "set_ctl: len %u != %u\n",
>                         len, set_arglen[CMDID(cmd)]);
> @@ -2547,9 +2549,6 @@ do_ip_vs_set_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, void __user 
> *user, unsigned int len)
>               break;
>       case IP_VS_SO_SET_DELDEST:
>               ret = ip_vs_del_dest(svc, &udest);
> -             break;
> -     default:
> -             ret = -EINVAL;
>       }
> 
>    out_unlock:

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>

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