lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: recvmsg: Unconditionally zero struct sockaddr_storage
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:14 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Some protocols do not correctly wipe the contents of the on-stack
>> struct sockaddr_storage sent down into recvmsg() (e.g. SCTP), and leak
>> kernel stack contents to userspace. This wipes it unconditionally before
>> per-protocol handlers run.
>>
>> Note that leaks like this are mitigated by building with
>> CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL=y
>>
>> Reported-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> ---
>> net/socket.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
>> index c729625eb5d3..34183f4fbdf8 100644
>> --- a/net/socket.c
>> +++ b/net/socket.c
>> @@ -2188,6 +2188,7 @@ static int ___sys_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct user_msghdr __user *msg,
>> struct sockaddr __user *uaddr;
>> int __user *uaddr_len = COMPAT_NAMELEN(msg);
>>
>> + memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(addr));
>> msg_sys->msg_name = &addr;
>>
>
> This kind of patch comes every year.
>
> Standard answer is : We fix the buggy protocol, we do not make
> everything slower just because we are lazy.
>
> struct sockaddr is 128 bytes, but IPV4 only uses a fraction of it.
>
> Also memset() is using long word stores, so next 4-byte or 2-byte stores
> on same location hit a performance problem on x86.
>
> By adding all these defensive programming, we would give strong
> incentives to bypass the kernel for networking. That would be bad.

In this case it looks like the root cause is something in sctp
not filling in the ipv6 sin6_scope_id.

Which is not only a leak but a correctness bug.

I ran the reproducer test program and while none of the leak checkers
are telling me anything I have gotten as far as seeing that the returned
length is correct and sometimes nonsense.

Hmm.

At a quick look it looks like all that is necessary is to do this:

diff --git a/net/sctp/ipv6.c b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
index 51c488769590..6301913d0516 100644
--- a/net/sctp/ipv6.c
+++ b/net/sctp/ipv6.c
@@ -807,9 +807,10 @@ static void sctp_inet6_skb_msgname(struct sk_buff *skb, char *msgname,
addr->v6.sin6_flowinfo = 0;
addr->v6.sin6_port = sh->source;
addr->v6.sin6_addr = ipv6_hdr(skb)->saddr;
- if (ipv6_addr_type(&addr->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) {
+ if (ipv6_addr_type(&addr->v6.sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)
addr->v6.sin6_scope_id = sctp_v6_skb_iif(skb);
- }
+ else
+ addr->v6.sin6_scope_id = 0;
}

*addr_len = sctp_v6_addr_to_user(sctp_sk(skb->sk), addr);
Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-01 13:50    [W:0.109 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site