Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-319-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 21:16:17 -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: <20231201211617.30371d79@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <202312012026.A0178237@keescook>
References: <20231130200058.work.520-kees@kernel.org>
	<20231130172520.5a56ae50@kernel.org>
	<202312010953.BEDC06111@keescook>
	<20231201104505.44ec5c89@kernel.org>
	<202312012026.A0178237@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 20:39:44 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > We are reading nla->nla_len, which is the first 2 bytes of the structure.
> > And then we check if the structure is... there?  
> 
> I'm not debating whether it's there or not -- I'm saying the _contents_ of
> "nlattr::nla_len", in the face of corruption or lack of initialization,
> may be less than NLA_HDRLEN. (There's a lot of "but that's can't happen"
> that _does_ happen in the kernel, so I'm extra paranoid.)

nlattr is not an object someone has allocated. It's a header of a TLV
in a byte stream of nested TLVs which comes from user space.
If the attr did not go thru nla_ok() or some other careful validation
we're toast regardless.

> > If we don't trust that struct nlattr which gets passed here is at least
> > NLA_HDRLEN (4B) then why do we think it's safe to read nla_len (the
> > first 2B of it)?  
> 
> Type confusion (usually due to Use-after-Free flaws) means that a memory
> region is valid (i.e. good pointer), but that the contents might have
> gotten changed through other means. (To see examples of this with
> struct msg_msg, see: https://syst3mfailure.io/wall-of-perdition/)

A bit of a long read.

> (On a related note, why does nla_len start at 4 instead of 0? i.e. why
> does it include the size of nlattr? That seems redundant based on the
> same logic you're using here.)

Beats me.