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;
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:27:08 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
        Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netlink: Bounds-check nlmsg_len()
Message-ID: <202208312324.F2F8B28CA@keescook>
References: <20220901030610.1121299-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20220901030610.1121299-2-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20220831201825.378d748d@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220831201825.378d748d@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:18:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 20:06:09 -0700 Kees Cook wrote:
> >  static inline int nlmsg_len(const struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
> >  {
> > -	return nlh->nlmsg_len - NLMSG_HDRLEN;
> > +	u32 nlmsg_contents_len;
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(check_sub_overflow(nlh->nlmsg_len,
> > +					    (u32)NLMSG_HDRLEN,
> > +					    &nlmsg_contents_len)))
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nlmsg_contents_len > INT_MAX))
> > +		return INT_MAX;
> > +	return nlmsg_contents_len;
> 
> We check the messages on input, making sure the length is valid wrt
> skb->len, and sane, ie > NLMSG_HDRLEN. See netlink_rcv_skb().
> 
> Can we not, pretty please? :(

This would catch corrupted values...

Is the concern the growth in image size? The check_sub_overflow() isn't
large at all -- it's just adding a single overflow bit test. The WARNs
are heavier, but they're all out-of-line.

-- 
Kees Cook