On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:38:49PM +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:

On 30/5/2023 19:36, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

[Updated Pieter's email address, dropped old email address of mine]

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 12:36:15PM +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:

quoted

If we send two TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_OPTS_GENEVE packets and their total
size is 252 bytes(key->enc_opts.len = 252) then
key->enc_opts.len = opt->length = data_len / 4 = 0 when the third
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_OPTS_GENEVE packet enters fl_set_geneve_opt. This
bypasses the next bounds check and results in an out-of-bounds.

Fixes: 0a6e77784f49 ("net/sched: allow flower to match tunnel options")
Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <redacted>

Hi Hangyu Hua,

Thanks. I think I see the problem too.
But I do wonder, is this more general than Geneve options?
That is, can this occur with any sequence of options, that
consume space in enc_opts (configured in fl_set_key()) that
in total are more than 256 bytes?

I think you are right. It is a good idea to add check in fl_set_vxlan_opt
and fl_set_erspan_opt and fl_set_gtp_opt too.
But they should be submitted as other patches. fl_set_geneve_opt has already
check this with the following code:

static int fl_set_geneve_opt(const struct nlattr *nla, struct fl_flow_key
*key,
			     int depth, int option_len,
			     struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
{
...
		if (new_len > FLOW_DIS_TUN_OPTS_MAX) {
			NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Tunnel options exceeds max size");
			return -ERANGE;
		}
...
}

This bug will only be triggered under this special
condition(key->enc_opts.len = 252). So I think it will be better understood
by submitting this patch independently.

A considered approach sounds good to me.

I do wonder, could the bounds checks be centralised in the caller?
Maybe not if it doesn't know the length that will be consumed.

By the way, I think memset's third param should be option_len in
fl_set_vxlan_opt and fl_set_erspan_opt. Do I need to submit another patch to
fix all these issues?

I think that in general one fix per patch is best.

Some minor nits.

1. As this is a fix for networking code it is probably targeted
   at the net, as opposed to net-next, tree. This should be indicated
   in the patch subject.

	 Subject: [PATCH net v2] ...

2. I think the usual patch prefix for this file, of late,
   has been 'net/sched: flower: '

	 Subject: [PATCH net v2]  net/sched: flower: ...