Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: socket: Fix potential spectre v1 gadget in
 sock_is_registered
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180727224302.5503-1-jcline@redhat.com>
 <20180727224302.5503-3-jcline@redhat.com>
 <20180729135906.lgqo5ue6it3hl2da@treble>
 <914d34af-ba80-93b9-6f17-413eef8bf210@redhat.com>
 <20180813171642.wlxmnzgsg2rkwe4o@treble>
From:   Jeremy Cline <jcline@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=jcline@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsFNBFThCPYBEACx9hl05pMfpVKVjm8Yrmd2I3sm9Jw7EIGfn1tmncSnzfveN7UcIjYI23Gw
 DE11Hf70tMZKXhNmQqDqoftEDwLbTuzBdgJXFZmfEwrcQHGiR5CZ4IQ3U7SF0a701lyYtuNs
 WndEO8CCaWHUYybiEl1yRZhwyzAA1j/izilD7FckOaEsTM1sFVDs74qWsNGIdJXYQ5dz/iV/
 45wgYNprfMTZQXLvbGIjAD6rmvuArjCQ5GINYSZqO16xZNNWMnS2C0ZFnWz0Fl3VTpukzvO0
 ndYT1P4t7pTWT59XPHKKp1Xs25SDO49GTH+hCnaaMjaKL43gVBw1dEu6nY9Nk4EblVnaJv+x
 34X1WZFQheglUuPwH04IDZwVE/ACLZPir5eF7zSiRxGOo1COJwg42o5ow4Aq3vbHCONhvGPh
 kmB5cxcfOyeruurDVcDGu876qFon44l1mPmZWEtYAep3ngQ6zzawfnC2y5Tjm0syX2n6VgBB
 Y+CR+8jtprwPS4szgbXq5Z+VnxMXAikxrG55vY7uZ2id4z1uqwJRTXdkvzfP52POHuX/Etbz
 IeQJSQWLqdh4IBXR9QoaXVBwJMMhk5+GYAQ+DXPJzglqxxI/1OuWZi2/2NqrpKMIzXOTxT8/
 uUx9jMT9TsFvu5XiiKC5oMvUv2JIW6XQB1Ay73c1niqL5MDdAwARAQABzVRKZXJlbXkgQ2xp
 bmUgKGh0dHBzOi8vZmVkb3JhcHJvamVjdC5vcmcvd2lraS9Vc2VyOkpjbGluZSkgPGpjbGlu
 ZUBmZWRvcmFwcm9qZWN0Lm9yZz7CwY4EEwEIADgWIQSvPJnHsb8iwP1BXSvGyJ0h8ZTGQgUC
 WtDsAQIbAwULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRDGyJ0h8ZTGQuJqD/9zckk1e4Kp
 0toGt/pYOVBmdwv/NOJh8w4pFaSq2mdlHkQh0HVnxifWTN0gm9z8ze7cEdj//hElti/wH6lZ
 E7wFkiwkLBXSZpwQbY/AYQ9a01SJgFE5+7Jk5YI1p3T2V6xgWU5HNUUYcOwxxaJB2ANWep0i
 KwCvWE0pQFvafVDJaxbAwmL+7/L4Y6YeO5pHCzxv1Vdm54Gy+pKPhEiq/TeqVCx0GrE50stC
 oAIPa/O8WwYDddNdy75i3DE4kIpgNaGruP5qlHHSKXmLJcRU00njySXxdilKjAWZ66x9hI8+
 BfJiyi/WXEb/qmOsh2rVLeRt9tY5xh5vIJTZlqMKLLnC9pJL12KcTd6Me3hKDhKrUighFvFp
 GRGst7pNPh5j68ZB9sCa9spsIyyspeM3hOBbCQN49DY7LnOMjgXigVqZvBV+3WhFpDkyedmR
 LaoES6I6iLhtTsuxkxrw8qSqWAbU6Bxm9QeQwikfxhrT415oGABI01da2taI6c96HTp2cGh+
 06TFfcVXuiPPZTf0G2Be+VhE8AU40CGquZBqk1ZDgUAZuZ5H5q9Y6MyRpPwPCW6gV4yUKeXu
 yyWg0g4ZDCne7uFXNgBSfvmwR9sjb3iYx2Dn4iSWwuQzYk0oNkcIGtMy/NyuBgZwrpiGQIFj
 fDS4xrtQh9pk0+RbY2HuApeuxM7BTQRU4Qj2ARAApA5cy8aJjeSJQrmnT0g4G/Y3ipaUqY+G
 s7fEiabuSRjhNilPQbN1KJR7jtSLgu9wzTOAh2MfIShzmLpegWpRCFyZCsLUYWZPe3kPFHZE
 CdRCA+tCApLE1UswrslCMLwQ2JTV7v6gjv3LUwfw1bSDMNMXJ8MGswbcYUgZpTEASA42yUaW
 WJgq7olWltlU3MTlR79CmXCRvhQWdsqg4+mdfO6PIuKTy8tx2bzax3jLZ2AV1M7mQi+sJxVn
 MUZpoUmfj6qMzBWTISGqKFCRMwZAzSEjpY6BvmJ9Vzxbj8M1MCKWlWnZq/ZbhRuoVuXhyFKK
 mxDU4cclIS+ggHrglibI49M2XSnF9FSCCnlaOd9L+NF7Zx2W1dey7Nq34si7H81opii+ZeO0
 au92iIlB8J8t9Ba2dBx0SURWYU/R8g6FyRuDKEO1Y0NpBAwFIjq68tJFyq7reL0HqrxiTI4B
 854ZJHpePUnfllWlaEXJ3wJ4UIMSTDNsz/HYuEcch3185sfP1vJ9YRBE7y4N3EEB+dVsfgY/
 crsCwMxjukftWfohCLS09rXAkoBQz0luTzHESe3fmMoO5kwbvOJkBOBCEYJz/rqTk24ouc9q
 PVC6DUX5jmRO+2Ll17O/H1gLpjwVDHi2i2kFSsl88+DThQlJrCGmIwYB6KqvHHNoCotd8Dvb
 fA8AEQEAAcLBXwQYAQIACQUCVOEI9gIbDAAKCRDGyJ0h8ZTGQi1bD/wMbSCnreanQFYTTgzC
 6i/dtsWrd3DvJzaxKdUrSjioP1tK6YLpS7SSc5khYUjVp7xdsu9vCazsLspzBYbQOV02xtI5
 CTLwMzh4hYE1/66K899++0v2dP9m9DEKu/R4vqW4axTfWIbR/ygd1bh2a/7NpAT6qiJg8vha
 Qkf/fVKZ9xM7EDHmfFJscqC6JyYNdYvz8wJ0aa9Z6zvnNUzjAntj62kJV8b8m5diUQDUI8dp
 r9crk+XxOTNpYid6p8mlNTcX54LTy1eEL7BYG1S3ezcLZC9/78MTdTJbxQMz7/zQXOABfMDy
 +otLuhEBxi5hl+COIsiRotTOBNPNr1UmV4fQjXz2K6cfgaO/9NilQaEU6zpsMcAOi5lLxlzD
 GRyPO2a0QQFZ7FmH9dRWw/6mmspQMBNRr5CrQdIBiWDcJGNPl8iX9TqwP62dZgwANT6+FR7K
 If4axm/gJQMSUCon3eLJhi8b5qZp4vZn7Xj4hCswrO9eExmT9IjpRVcHLYti36m99WRvItDy
 dVvrvIQi5qah3PrQjtwSJ61ExSZTOpBQGC60yQf+GG0TISIeeXX8CK2e1PIDt7/l+d0onCmU
 /98IQsNgR/9sifmdPeh3nKsxe2vsa3HNeElQU2ko6ZHMrE0gSyel5vaqRLQQwekBx1mr/7Ll
 X/87hZ4pdW/aOXUAgQ==
Message-ID: <e4ceaa56-0550-b560-751d-7288a4c1b850@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:03:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180813171642.wlxmnzgsg2rkwe4o@treble>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/13/2018 06:16 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:59:36AM -0400, Jeremy Cline wrote:
>> On 07/29/2018 09:59 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:43:02PM +0000, Jeremy Cline wrote:
>>>> 'family' can be a user-controlled value, so sanitize it after the bounds
>>>> check to avoid speculative out-of-bounds access.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jcline@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  net/socket.c | 3 ++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
>>>> index f15d5cbb3ba4..608e29ae6baf 100644
>>>> --- a/net/socket.c
>>>> +++ b/net/socket.c
>>>> @@ -2672,7 +2672,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sock_unregister);
>>>>  
>>>>  bool sock_is_registered(int family)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	return family < NPROTO && rcu_access_pointer(net_families[family]);
>>>> +	return family < NPROTO &&
>>>> +		rcu_access_pointer(net_families[array_index_nospec(family, NPROTO)]);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static int __init sock_init(void)
>>>
>>> This is another one where I think it would be better to do the nospec
>>> clamp higher up the call chain.  The untrusted 'family' value comes from
>>> __sock_diag_cmd():
>>>
>>> __sock_diag_cmd
>>>   sock_load_diag_module
>>>     sock_is_registered
>>>
>>> That function has a bounds check, and also uses the value in some other
>>> array accesses:
>>>
>>> 	if (req->sdiag_family >= AF_MAX)
>>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> 	if (sock_diag_handlers[req->sdiag_family] == NULL)
>>> 		sock_load_diag_module(req->sdiag_family, 0);
>>>
>>> 	mutex_lock(&sock_diag_table_mutex);
>>> 	hndl = sock_diag_handlers[req->sdiag_family];
>>> 	...
>>>
>>> So I think clamping 'req->sdiag_family' right after the bounds check
>>> would be the way to go.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, the clamp there would cover this clamp. I had a scheme that I
>> quickly fix all the gadgets in functions with local comparisons, but
>> clearly that's going to result in call chains with multiple clamps.
>>
>> I can fix this in a follow-up with a clamp here, or respin this patch
>> set, whatever is easier for David.
> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> Just checking up on this... since this patch was merged, will you be
> doing a followup patch?
> 

Yes, apologies, I've been traveling. I'll have a patch tomorrow.