Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35593-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:49:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Danielle Ratson <danieller@nvidia.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "davem@davemloft.net"
 <davem@davemloft.net>, "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
 "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>, "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
 "linux@armlinux.org.uk" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, "sdf@google.com"
 <sdf@google.com>, "kory.maincent@bootlin.com" <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
 "maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
 "vladimir.oltean@nxp.com" <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
 "przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com" <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
 "ahmed.zaki@intel.com" <ahmed.zaki@intel.com>, "richardcochran@gmail.com"
 <richardcochran@gmail.com>, "shayagr@amazon.com" <shayagr@amazon.com>,
 "paul.greenwalt@intel.com" <paul.greenwalt@intel.com>, "jiri@resnulli.us"
 <jiri@resnulli.us>, "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org"
 <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mlxsw <mlxsw@nvidia.com>, Petr Machata
 <petrm@nvidia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] ethtool: Add ability to flash
 transceiver modules' firmware
Message-ID: <20240123074955.72c27eb0@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB45168E425B2C1832F6D26453D8742@DM6PR12MB4516.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240122084530.32451-1-danieller@nvidia.com>
	<20240122084530.32451-10-danieller@nvidia.com>
	<20240122210534.5054b202@kernel.org>
	<DM6PR12MB45168E425B2C1832F6D26453D8742@DM6PR12MB4516.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:05:16 +0000 Danielle Ratson wrote:
> > GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK, and you can check it in the caller, before taking
> > rtnl_lock.
> >   
> 
> OK, np. The idea was to have module_flash_fw() that checks the attrs
> and extract them into params and ethnl_act_module_fw_flash() should
> be free from those checks. But if so, maybe this separation is
> redundant and should combine the two?

No strong preference, whatever looks better :)
To use GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK() I think you'll need to pass genl_info here.
You can either to that or move the validation.

> > > +  
> > tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME],  
> > > +				    "File name attribute is missing");
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	params.file_name =
> > > +		nla_data(tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME]);  
> > 
> > Hm. I think you copy the param struct by value to the work container.
> > nla_data() is in the skb which is going to get freed after _ACT returns.
> > So if anyone tries to access the name from the work it's going to UAF?  
> 
> The file_name parameter is not really needed inside the work. Once we
> called request_firmware_direct(), we have all that we need in
> module_fw->fw. Do we still need to avoid that situation? If so, can
> you please suggest how?

I'd pass it to module_flash_fw_schedule() as a separate argument, if it
doesn't have to be saved.