From: Willem de Bruijn
> Sent: 23 April 2019 16:08
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 5:59 AM David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Willem de Bruijn
> > > Sent: 22 December 2018 21:54
> > > Validate packet socket address length if a length is given. Zero
> > > length is equivalent to not setting an address.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 99137b7888f4 ("packet: validate address length")
> > > Reported-by: Ido Schimmel <ido...@idosch.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/packet/af_packet.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > index 5dda263b4a0a..eedacdebcd4c 100644
> > > --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > @@ -2625,7 +2625,7 @@ static int tpacket_snd(struct packet_sock *po,
> > > struct msghdr *msg)
> > > sll_addr)))
> > > goto out;
> > > proto = saddr->sll_protocol;
> > > - addr = saddr->sll_addr;
> > > + addr = saddr->sll_halen ? saddr->sll_addr : NULL;
> > > dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(&po->sk),
> > > saddr->sll_ifindex);
> > > if (addr && dev && saddr->sll_halen < dev->addr_len)
> > > goto out;
> > > @@ -2825,7 +2825,7 @@ static int packet_snd(struct socket *sock, struct
> > > msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> > > if (msg->msg_namelen < (saddr->sll_halen + offsetof(struct
> > > sockaddr_ll, sll_addr)))
> > > goto out;
> > > proto = saddr->sll_protocol;
> > > - addr = saddr->sll_addr;
> > > + addr = saddr->sll_halen ? saddr->sll_addr : NULL;
> > > dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), saddr->sll_ifindex);
> > > if (addr && dev && saddr->sll_halen < dev->addr_len)
> > > goto out;
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1.415.g653613c723-goog
> >
> > We've just discovered the combination of this patch and the one it 'fixes'
> > breaks some of our userspace code.
> >
> > Prior to these changes it didn't matter if code using AF_PACKET to
> > send ethernet frames on a specific 'ethertype' failed to set sll_addr.
> > Everything assumed it would be 6 - and the packets were sent.
> >
> > With both changes you get a -EINVAL return from somewhere.
> > I can fix our code, but I doubt it is the only code affected.
> > Other people are likely to have copied the same example.
>
> Thanks for the report.
>
> Usage trumps correctness. But this seems to be a case of damned if you
> do, damned if you don't.
>
> Syzbot found a real use case of reading beyond the end of
> msg->msg_namelen, since that is checked against
>
> if (msg->msg_namelen < (saddr->sll_halen +
> offsetof(struct sockaddr_ll, sll_addr)))
>
> Just assuming that address length is dev->addr_len allows an
> ns_capable root to build link layer packets with address set to
> uninitialized data.
>
> Ethernet is not the most problematic link layer. Indeed, since
> ETH_ALEN < sizeof(sll_addr), the previous check
>
> if (msg->msg_namelen < sizeof(struct sockaddr_ll))
>
> Will be sufficient in this case. The syzbot report was on a device of
> type ip6gre, with addr_len sizeof(struct in6_addr).
>
> So I can refine to only perform the check on protocols with addr_len
> >= sizeof(sll_addr), excluding Ethernet.
Maybe something like:
addr = saddr->sll_addr;
dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), saddr->sll_ifindex);
if (dev && msg->msg_namelen < (dev->addr_len
+ offsetof(struct sockaddr_ll,
sll_addr)))
/* Don't read address from beyond the end of the buffer
*/
goto out;
So it just checks that all of the address is in the buffer passed
from the user.
Although I'd write those tests in a different order:
if (dev && offsetof(struct sockaddr_ll, sll_addr) +
dev->addr_len > msg->msg_namelen)
goto out;
FWIW the relevant application code has been in our cvs tree for 13 years.
Mark Brown might remember where he stole it from :-)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT,
UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
