Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:43:36 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To:     joao@overdrivepizza.com
Cc:     netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kadlec@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        rkannoth@marvell.com, wojciech.drewek@intel.com,
        steen.hegenlund@microhip.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Make num_actions unsigned
Message-ID: <ZRWDCGG5/dP12YEs@calendula>
References: <20230927164715.76744-1-joao@overdrivepizza.com>
 <20230927164715.76744-3-joao@overdrivepizza.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230927164715.76744-3-joao@overdrivepizza.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 09:47:15AM -0700, joao@overdrivepizza.com wrote:
> From: Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>
> 
> Currently, in nft_flow_rule_create function, num_actions is a signed
> integer. Yet, it is processed within a loop which increments its
> value. To prevent an overflow from occurring, make it unsigned and
> also check if it reaches 256 when being incremented.
> 
> Accordingly to discussions around v2, 256 actions are more than enough
> for the frontend actions.
> 
> After checking with maintainers, it was mentioned that front-end will
> cap the num_actions value and that it is not possible to reach such
> condition for an overflow. Yet, for correctness, it is still better to
> fix this.
> 
> This issue was observed by the commit author while reviewing a write-up
> regarding a CVE within the same subsystem [1].
> 
> 1 - https://nickgregory.me/post/2022/03/12/cve-2022-25636/

Yes, but this is not related to the netfilter subsystem itself, this
harderning is good to have for the flow offload infrastructure in
general.

> Signed-off-by: Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>
> ---
>  net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c
> index 12ab78fa5d84..9a86db1f0e07 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ struct nft_flow_rule *nft_flow_rule_create(struct net *net,
>  {
>  	struct nft_offload_ctx *ctx;
>  	struct nft_flow_rule *flow;
> -	int num_actions = 0, err;
> +	unsigned int num_actions = 0;
> +	int err;

reverse xmas tree.

>  	struct nft_expr *expr;
>  
>  	expr = nft_expr_first(rule);
> @@ -99,6 +100,10 @@ struct nft_flow_rule *nft_flow_rule_create(struct net *net,
>  		    expr->ops->offload_action(expr))
>  			num_actions++;
>  
> +		/* 2^8 is enough for frontend actions, avoid overflow */
> +		if (num_actions == 256)

This cap is not specific of nf_tables, it should apply to all other
subsystems. This is the wrong spot.

Moreover, please, add a definition for this, no hardcoded values.

> +			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

Better E2BIG or similar, otherwise this propagates to userspace as
ENOMEM.

> +
>  		expr = nft_expr_next(expr);
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.42.0
>