Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 01:09:29 -0400
From:   Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc:     Wensong Zhang <wensong@linux-vs.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        coreteam@netfilter.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] ipvs: Fix uninit-value in
 do_ip_vs_set_ctl()
Message-ID: <20200811050929.GA821443@PWN>
References: <20200810220703.796718-1-yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
 <CAM_iQpWsQubVJ-AYaLHujHwz68+nsHBcbgbf8XPMEPD=Vu+zaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpWsQubVJ-AYaLHujHwz68+nsHBcbgbf8XPMEPD=Vu+zaA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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@gmail.com> 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?

@@ -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:

Thank you,
Peilin Ye

> In either case, it does not look like you fix it correctly.
> 
> Thanks.