Hello.
Padding/reserved fields necessitate appropriate checks in order to be usable
in the future.
Eugene Syromiatnikov (2):
mctp: handle the struct sockaddr_mctp padding fields
mctp: handle the struct sockaddr_mctp_ext padding field
net/mctp/af_mctp.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.1.4
In order to have the padding fields actually usable in the future,
there have to be checks that user space doesn't supply non-zero garbage
there. It is also worth setting these padding fields to zero, unless
it is known that they have been already zeroed.
Cc: [email protected] # v5.15
Complements: 5a20dd46b8b84593 ("mctp: Be explicit about struct sockaddr_mctp padding")
Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <[email protected]>
---
net/mctp/af_mctp.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/mctp/af_mctp.c b/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
index d344b02..bc88159 100644
--- a/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
+++ b/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
@@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ static int mctp_release(struct socket *sock)
return 0;
}
+/* Generic sockaddr checks, padding checks only so far */
+static bool mctp_sockaddr_is_ok(const struct sockaddr_mctp *addr)
+{
+ return !addr->__smctp_pad0 && !addr->__smctp_pad1;
+}
+
static int mctp_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr, int addrlen)
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
@@ -52,6 +58,9 @@ static int mctp_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr, int addrlen)
/* it's a valid sockaddr for MCTP, cast and do protocol checks */
smctp = (struct sockaddr_mctp *)addr;
+ if (!mctp_sockaddr_is_ok(smctp))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
lock_sock(sk);
/* TODO: allow rebind */
@@ -87,6 +96,8 @@ static int mctp_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
return -EINVAL;
if (addr->smctp_family != AF_MCTP)
return -EINVAL;
+ if (!mctp_sockaddr_is_ok(addr))
+ return -EINVAL;
if (addr->smctp_tag & ~(MCTP_TAG_MASK | MCTP_TAG_OWNER))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -198,11 +209,13 @@ static int mctp_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
addr = msg->msg_name;
addr->smctp_family = AF_MCTP;
+ addr->__smctp_pad0 = 0;
addr->smctp_network = cb->net;
addr->smctp_addr.s_addr = hdr->src;
addr->smctp_type = type;
addr->smctp_tag = hdr->flags_seq_tag &
(MCTP_HDR_TAG_MASK | MCTP_HDR_FLAG_TO);
+ addr->__smctp_pad1 = 0;
msg->msg_namelen = sizeof(*addr);
if (msk->addr_ext) {
--
2.1.4
struct sockaddr_mctp_ext.__smctp_paddin0 has to be checked for being set
to zero, otherwise it cannot be utilised in the future.
Complements: 99ce45d5e7dbde39 ("mctp: Implement extended addressing")
Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <[email protected]>
---
net/mctp/af_mctp.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/mctp/af_mctp.c b/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
index bc88159..6cd1308 100644
--- a/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
+++ b/net/mctp/af_mctp.c
@@ -39,6 +39,13 @@ static bool mctp_sockaddr_is_ok(const struct sockaddr_mctp *addr)
return !addr->__smctp_pad0 && !addr->__smctp_pad1;
}
+static bool mctp_sockaddr_ext_is_ok(const struct sockaddr_mctp_ext *addr)
+{
+ return !addr->__smctp_pad0[0]
+ && !addr->__smctp_pad0[1]
+ && !addr->__smctp_pad0[2];
+}
+
static int mctp_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr, int addrlen)
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
@@ -135,7 +142,8 @@ static int mctp_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
DECLARE_SOCKADDR(struct sockaddr_mctp_ext *,
extaddr, msg->msg_name);
- if (extaddr->smctp_halen > sizeof(cb->haddr)) {
+ if (!mctp_sockaddr_ext_is_ok(extaddr)
+ || extaddr->smctp_halen > sizeof(cb->haddr)) {
rc = -EINVAL;
goto err_free;
}
@@ -224,6 +232,7 @@ static int mctp_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
msg->msg_namelen = sizeof(*ae);
ae->smctp_ifindex = cb->ifindex;
ae->smctp_halen = cb->halen;
+ memset(ae->__smctp_pad0, 0x0, sizeof(ae->__smctp_pad0));
memset(ae->smctp_haddr, 0x0, sizeof(ae->smctp_haddr));
memcpy(ae->smctp_haddr, cb->haddr, cb->halen);
}
--
2.1.4
Hi Eugene,
> Padding/reserved fields necessitate appropriate checks in order to be
> usable in the future.
We don't have a foreseeable need for extra fields here; so this is a bit
hypothetical at the moment. However, I guess there may be something that
comes up in future - was there something you have in mind?
The requirements for the padding bytes to be zero on sendmsg() will
break the ABI for applications that are using the interface on 5.15;
there's a small, contained set of those at the moment though, so I'm OK
to handle the updates if this patch is accepted, but we'd need to make a
call on that soon.
Setting the pad bytes to zero on recvmsg() is a good plan though, I'm
happy for that change to go in regardless.
Cheers,
Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 09:57:34AM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
>
> > Padding/reserved fields necessitate appropriate checks in order to be
> > usable in the future.
>
> We don't have a foreseeable need for extra fields here; so this is a bit
> hypothetical at the moment. However, I guess there may be something that
> comes up in future - was there something you have in mind?
Not really, but reality suggests that many interfaces tend to extend
over time (including socket addresses, see flags in sockaddr_vm
as an example), so future-proofing padding allows extending into it
with minimal implementation complication, comparing to other approaches.
> The requirements for the padding bytes to be zero on sendmsg() will
> break the ABI for applications that are using the interface on 5.15;
> there's a small, contained set of those at the moment though, so I'm OK
> to handle the updates if this patch is accepted, but we'd need to make a
> call on that soon.
Yeah, I regret I have not caught it earlier.
> Setting the pad bytes to zero on recvmsg() is a good plan though, I'm
> happy for that change to go in regardless.
I can split it out in case there is hesitance with regards to applying padding
checks.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 18:54:53 +0100 Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> +static bool mctp_sockaddr_ext_is_ok(const struct sockaddr_mctp_ext *addr)
> +{
> + return !addr->__smctp_pad0[0]
> + && !addr->__smctp_pad0[1]
> + && !addr->__smctp_pad0[2];
&& at the end of the previous line please. Checkpatch will point those
out to you.
> +}