On 06/30/2017 10:06 PM, Lawrence Brakmo wrote:
[...]
@@ -2672,6 +2673,69 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto 
bpf_get_socket_uid_proto = {
        .arg1_type      = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
  };

+BPF_CALL_5(bpf_setsockopt, struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *, bpf_sock,
+          int, level, int, optname, char *, optval, int, optlen)
+{
+       struct sock *sk = bpf_sock->sk;
+       int ret = 0;
+       int val;
+
+       if (!sk_fullsock(sk))
+               return -EINVAL;
+
+       if (level == SOL_SOCKET) {
+               /* Only some socketops are supported */
+               val = *((int *)optval);
+
+               switch (optname) {
+               case SO_RCVBUF:
+                       sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK;
+                       sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF);
+                       break;
+               case SO_SNDBUF:
+                       sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK;
+                       sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF);
+                       break;
+               case SO_MAX_PACING_RATE:
+                       sk->sk_max_pacing_rate = val;
+                       sk->sk_pacing_rate = min(sk->sk_pacing_rate,
+                                                sk->sk_max_pacing_rate);
+                       break;
+               case SO_PRIORITY:
+                       sk->sk_priority = val;
+                       break;
+               case SO_RCVLOWAT:
+                       if (val < 0)
+                               val = INT_MAX;
+                       sk->sk_rcvlowat = val ? : 1;
+                       break;
+               case SO_MARK:
+                       sk->sk_mark = val;
+                       break;
+               default:
+                       ret = -EINVAL;
+               }
+       } else if (level == SOL_TCP &&
+                  sk->sk_prot->setsockopt == tcp_setsockopt) {
+               /* Place holder */
+               ret = -EINVAL;
+       } else {
+               ret = -EINVAL;
+       }
+       return ret;
+}
+
+static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_setsockopt_proto = {
+       .func           = bpf_setsockopt,
+       .gpl_only       = true,
+       .ret_type       = RET_INTEGER,
+       .arg1_type      = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
+       .arg2_type      = ARG_ANYTHING,
+       .arg3_type      = ARG_ANYTHING,
+       .arg4_type      = ARG_PTR_TO_MEM,
+       .arg5_type      = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO,

Hm, I had some feedback on this in your last revision of the patch
set [1] that a NULL pointer dereference can be triggered here. Probably
oversaw it; I mentioned wrt the above:

  Any reason you went with the ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO type? Semantics
  of this are that allowed [arg4, arg5] pair can be i) [NULL, 0] or
  ii) [non-NULL, non-zero], where in case ii) verifier checks that the
  area is initialized when coming from BPF stack.

  So above 'val = *((int *)optval);' would give a NULL pointer deref
  with NULL passed as arg or in case optlen was < sizeof(int) we access
  stack out of bounds potentially. If the [NULL, 0] pair is not required,
  I would just make that a ARG_CONST_SIZE and then check for size before
  accessing optval.

Would be good if you could still address it in a most likely final respin.

Thanks,
Daniel

  [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/781800/

Reply via email to