Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-265-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:25:20 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@redhat.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, Jeff
 Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>, Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>, Max
 Schulze <max.schulze@online.de>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: Return unsigned value for nla_len()
Message-ID: <20231130172520.5a56ae50@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231130200058.work.520-kees@kernel.org>
References: <20231130200058.work.520-kees@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:01:01 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> This has the additional benefit of being defensive in the face of nlattr
> corruption or logic errors (i.e. nla_len being set smaller than
> NLA_HDRLEN).

As Johannes predicted I'd rather not :(

The callers should put the nlattr thru nla_ok() during validation
(nla_validate()), or walking (nla_for_each_* call nla_ok()).

> -static inline int nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
> +static inline u16 nla_len(const struct nlattr *nla)
>  {
> -	return nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN;
> +	return nla->nla_len > NLA_HDRLEN ? nla->nla_len - NLA_HDRLEN : 0;
>  }

Note the the NLA_HDRLEN is the length of struct nlattr.
I mean of the @nla object that gets passed in as argument here.
So accepting that nla->nla_len may be < NLA_HDRLEN means
that we are okay with dereferencing a truncated object...

We can consider making the return unsinged without the condition maybe?
-- 
pw-bot: cr