Re: [PATCH net 13/13] iavf: validate num_vsis in VIRTCHNL_OP_GET_VF_RESOURCES response
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-07-23 15:58:02
Also in:
stable
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. --- iavf: validate num_vsis in VIRTCHNL_OP_GET_VF_RESOURCES response This patch clamps the num_vsis field from the PF's VIRTCHNL_OP_GET_VF_RESOURCES response so that the loop bound used when iterating over the fixed-size vsi_res[] buffer cannot exceed what the received message length can cover.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_virtchnl.c index ec234cc8bd9d..c4039d2b24a4 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_virtchnl.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_virtchnl.c
[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -300,7 +316,7 @@ int iavf_get_vf_config(struct iavf_adapter *adapter) * we aren't getting too many queues */ if (!err) - iavf_validate_num_queues(adapter); + iavf_validate_num_queues(adapter, min(event.msg_len, len)); iavf_vf_parse_hw_config(hw, adapter->vf_res); kfree(event.msg_buf);
[High]
Does the error path in iavf_get_vf_config() still allow the
out-of-bounds access on vsi_res[] that the commit message describes?
Looking at the surrounding code:
err = iavf_poll_virtchnl_msg(hw, &event, VIRTCHNL_OP_GET_VF_RESOURCES);
memcpy(adapter->vf_res, event.msg_buf, min(event.msg_len, len));
/* some PFs send more queues than we should have so validate that
* we aren't getting too many queues
*/
if (!err)
iavf_validate_num_queues(adapter, min(event.msg_len, len));
iavf_vf_parse_hw_config(hw, adapter->vf_res);
The memcpy of the PF-supplied payload into adapter->vf_res runs
unconditionally, but the new num_vsis clamp is only invoked when err is
zero.
iavf_poll_virtchnl_msg() returns virtchnl_status_to_errno(v_retval), so a
PF response carrying a non-success v_retval together with an
attacker-controlled msg_buf would still populate adapter->vf_res with the
raw num_vsis value and then skip the clamp.
iavf_vf_parse_hw_config() runs unconditionally after that and iterates
based on the unclamped u16 num_vsis:
for (i = 0; i < msg->num_vsis; i++) {
if (vsi_res->vsi_type == VIRTCHNL_VSI_SRIOV) {
ether_addr_copy(hw->mac.perm_addr,
vsi_res->default_mac_addr);
ether_addr_copy(hw->mac.addr,
vsi_res->default_mac_addr);
}
vsi_res++;
}
vsi_res[] is a fixed-size array of IAVF_MAX_VF_VSI (3) entries in the
adapter->vf_res allocation, so num_vsis up to 65535 would walk far past
that buffer, and any OOB slot whose vsi_type happens to equal
VIRTCHNL_VSI_SRIOV would additionally copy six bytes of adjacent heap
memory into hw->mac.perm_addr and hw->mac.addr.
Would it make sense to either apply the num_vsis clamp unconditionally,
or gate the memcpy and iavf_vf_parse_hw_config() behind the same
if (!err) as the validation, so that the error path cannot reintroduce
the out-of-bounds access this patch is meant to close?