Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:13:29 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+13a08c0bf4d212766c3c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [crypto?] general protection fault in shash_async_final
Message-ID: <ZIrWOe4pG7M3TJic@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <000000000000b928f705fdeb873a@google.com>
 <1433015.1686741914@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1433015.1686741914@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:25:14PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Here's a reduced testcase for this.  The key seems to be passing MSG_MORE to
> sendmsg() and then not following up with more data before calling recvmsg().
> Apart from not oopsing, I wonder what the behaviour should be here?  Should
> recvmsg() return an error (EAGAIN or ENODATA maybe) or should it close the
> existing operation?

On send if MSG_MORE is set then we don't finalise the hash.

If the user calls recvmsg while the hash hasn't been finalised, then
we will force finalisation (thus rendering the last MSG_MORE moot).

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt