Thread (17 messages) flat view 17 messages, 5 authors, 2021-02-10

Re: [net-next v2] tcp: Explicitly mark reserved field in tcp_zerocopy_receive args.

From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-02-07 08:31:06

On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 03:28:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sat,  6 Feb 2021 12:36:48 -0800 Arjun Roy wrote:
quoted
From: Arjun Roy <redacted>

Explicitly define reserved field and require it to be 0-valued.
quoted
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index e1a17c6b473c..c8469c579ed8 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -4159,6 +4159,8 @@ static int do_tcp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
 		}
 		if (copy_from_user(&zc, optval, len))
 			return -EFAULT;
+		if (zc.reserved)
+			return -EINVAL;
 		lock_sock(sk);
 		err = tcp_zerocopy_receive(sk, &zc, &tss);
 		release_sock(sk);
I was expecting we'd also throw in a check_zeroed_user().
Either we can check if the buffer is zeroed all the way,
or we can't and we shouldn't validate reserved either

	check_zeroed_user(optval + offsetof(reserved),
			  len - offsetof(reserved))
?
There is a check that len is not larger than zs and users can't give
large buffer.

I would say that is pretty safe to write "if (zc.reserved)".

Thanks
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help