1 Mar 2011 01:10
Re: [PATCHv2 net-next-2.6] ethtool: Compat handling for struct ethtool_rxnfc
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings <at> solarflare.com>
2011-03-01 00:10:33 GMT
2011-03-01 00:10:33 GMT
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 15:51 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:55:41PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I'm not sure whether more checks on rule_cnt are required for security > > or whether compat_alloc_user_space() and copy_in_user() can be relied on > > to limit any buffer overrun to the user process's own memory. It looks > > like this is safe on x86. > > I'm less familiar with the compat world, but it looks sane to me. All the > copy_in_user() calls are calculated based on structure sizes, right? Except > for the rule_cnt one, which was already bounds-checked for output. [...] No, because the native ioctl implementation writes out the actual number of rules to rxnfc->rule_cnt and we then read that back into rule_cnt before performing the copy from rxnfc->rule_locs to compat_rxnfc->rule_locs. So userland can race with us and modify that value. We could use the original value of rule_cnt to calculate the size to copy; it would just mean copying more than we need to most of the time. Ben. -- -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed