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, 3 May 2023 09:47:24 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To:     Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
Cc:     Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
        "lucien.xin@gmail.com" <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
        "lvc-project@linuxtesting.org" <lvc-project@linuxtesting.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
        "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "simon.horman@corigine.com" <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] sctp: fix a potential buffer overflow in
 sctp_sched_set_sched()
Message-ID: <ZFJX3KLkcu4nON7l@t14s.localdomain>
References: <20230502130316.2680585-1-Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
 <20230502170516.39760-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
 <ZFFNLtBYepvBzoPr@t14s.localdomain>
 <95bc9b12-9e1e-5054-c2df-ad9201d94ed5@infotecs.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <95bc9b12-9e1e-5054-c2df-ad9201d94ed5@infotecs.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:08:17AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> >> This unnecessary test confuses a reader like sched could be over
> >> SCTP_SS_MAX here.
> >
> > It's actualy better to keep the test here and remove it from the
> > callers: they don't need to know the specifics, and further new calls
> > will be protected already.
> >
> 
> I agree that the check should be removed, but I think it's better to
> keep the test on the calling side, because params->assoc_value is set as
> the default "stream schedule" for the socket and it needs to be checked too.
> 
> static int sctp_setsockopt_scheduler(..., struct sctp_assoc_value
> *params, ...)
> {
> ...
>    if (params->assoc_id == SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC ||
>        params->assoc_id == SCTP_ALL_ASSOC)
>        sp->default_ss = params->assoc_value;
> ...
> }

Good point. But then, don't remove the check. Instead, just fix that
ordering and make it less confusing.  Otherwise you will be really
making it prone to the OOB if a new call gets added that doesn't
validate the parameter.

Thanks,
Marcelo