Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220224103852.311369-1-baymaxhuang@gmail.com>
 <20220225090223.636877-1-baymaxhuang@gmail.com> <c687e1d8-e36a-8f23-342a-22b2a1efb372@gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEtTdvbc1rk6sk=KE7J2L0=R2M-FMxK+DfJDUYMTPbPJGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKLhhwGnmEyfZuEKjtt7OwTbVyDYcFUMDYoRpdXjbMwiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEuWLQ6fGXiew_1WGuLYsxEkT+vFequHpZW1KvH=3wcF-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHJXk3ahNPvniu8MKa2PNqin7ZxwRgrr7TbTftnpxMapxAtvNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHJXk3ahNPvniu8MKa2PNqin7ZxwRgrr7TbTftnpxMapxAtvNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:56:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEt_L8-4JasP3dNTEV7mafXc+W0vkr35cAUohz48-ND42g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tun: support NAPI for packets received from
 batched XDP buffs
To:     Harold Huang <baymaxhuang@gmail.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:XDP (eXpress Data Path)" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:27 PM Harold Huang <baymaxhuang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:17 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:59 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 8:20 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:06 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > How big n can be ?
> > >> >
> > >> > BTW I could not find where m->msg_controllen was checked in tun_sendmsg().
> > >> >
> > >> > struct tun_msg_ctl *ctl = m->msg_control;
> > >> >
> > >> > if (ctl && (ctl->type == TUN_MSG_PTR)) {
> > >> >
> > >> >      int n = ctl->num;  // can be set to values in [0..65535]
> > >> >
> > >> >      for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> > >> >
> > >> >          xdp = &((struct xdp_buff *)ctl->ptr)[i];
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I really do not understand how we prevent malicious user space from
> > >> > crashing the kernel.
> > >>
> > >> It looks to me the only user for this is vhost-net which limits it to
> > >> 64, userspace can't use sendmsg() directly on tap.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah right, thanks for the clarification.
> > >
> > > (IMO, either remove the "msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(ctl);" from handle_tx_zerocopy(), or add sanity checks in tun_sendmsg())
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Right, Harold, want to do that?
>
> I am greatly willing to do that. But  I am not quite sure about this.
>
> If we remove the "msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(ctl);" from
> handle_tx_zerocopy(), it seems msg.msg_controllen is always 0. What
> does it stands for?

It means msg_controllen is not used. But see below (adding sanity
check seems to be better).

>
> I see tap_sendmsg in drivers/net/tap.c also uses msg_controller to
> send batched xdp buffers. Do we need to add similar sanity checks to
> tap_sendmsg  as tun_sendmsg?
>

I think the point is to make sure the caller doesn't send us too short
msg_control. E.g the msg_controllen should be sizeof(tun_msg_ctl).

So we probably need to check in both places. (And initialize
msg_controllen is vhost_tx_batch())

Thanks