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:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 07:45:05 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, elena.reshetova@intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Amit Shah <amit@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] virtio console: Harden control message handling
Message-ID: <20230120074120-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20230119135721.83345-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
 <20230119135721.83345-5-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
 <Y8lgIS+jygB7SGrn@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8lgIS+jygB7SGrn@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > In handle_control_message(), we look at the ->event field twice, which
> > gives a malicious VMM a window in which to switch it from PORT_ADD to
> > PORT_REMOVE, triggering a null dereference further down the line:
> 
> How is the other VMM have full control over the full message here?
> Shouldn't this all have been copied into our local memory if we are
> going to be poking around in it?  Like I mentioned in my other review,
> copy it all once and then parse it.  Don't try to mess with individual
> fields one at a time otherwise that way lies madness...
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I agree and in fact, it is *already* copied since with malicious
device we generally use a bounce buffer.
Having said that, the patch is actually a cleanup, e.g. it's clearer
to byte-swap only once.
Just don't oversell it as a security thing.


-- 
MST