|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 11/15] net: skbuff: refuse to segment a nested frag_list
Josef Bacik wrote:
> skb_segment() walks head_skb's frag_list, but for each member it only
> looks at the linear part and frags[], never at the member's own
> frag_list. head_skb->len still counts those bytes, so with a nested
> frag_list the walk runs out of members while it still owes data, sets
> list_skb to NULL, and dereferences it on a later pass, before any of
> the layout checks get a chance to catch it. When the member is taken
> whole with skb_clone(), the pskb_trim() that follows also drops its
> nested data.
>
> Nothing in the tree is known to build such an skb; GRO flushes instead
> of chaining an skb that already has a frag_list. Check each member as
> the walk takes it, in the GSO_BY_FRAGS, clone and frag paths, and fail
> the segmentation with -EINVAL if there's no member left or it has its
> own frag_list, with a DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE() for debug kernels, like
> the other frag_list layout checks. Without SG the payload is copied
> with helpers that do recurse into nested frag_lists, so that path is
> left alone.
>
> Suggested-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/skbuff.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index 56cec58bccb7..c5e28a52114b 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -5087,6 +5087,15 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment(struct sk_buff *head_skb,
> int size;
>
> if (unlikely(gso_by_frags)) {
> + /* The walk only goes one level deep: running out of
> + * members, or finding one with its own frag_list, means
> + * a nested frag_list that head_skb->len counts.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(!list_skb || skb_has_frag_list(list_skb)))
> {
> + DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
This patch became quite a bit more complex because of my request.
More than I anticipated.
Are you sure this first block is needed?
> len = list_skb->len;
> } else {
> len = head_skb->len - offset;
> @@ -5096,9 +5105,11 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment(struct sk_buff *head_skb,
>
> hsize = skb_headlen(head_skb) - offset;
>
> - if (hsize <= 0 && i >= nfrags && skb_headlen(list_skb) &&
> + if (hsize <= 0 && i >= nfrags && list_skb &&
this test for list_skb != NULL is new. Previously this code already
tested skb_headlen(list_skb) without it. Likely not needed for
anything new in this patch?
> + skb_headlen(list_skb) &&
> (skb_headlen(list_skb) == len || sg)) {
> - if (unlikely(skb_headlen(list_skb) > len)) {
> + if (unlikely(skb_headlen(list_skb) > len ||
> + skb_has_frag_list(list_skb))) {
> DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto err;
> @@ -5216,6 +5227,13 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment(struct sk_buff *head_skb,
>
> while (pos < offset + len) {
> if (i >= nfrags) {
> + if (unlikely(!list_skb ||
> + skb_has_frag_list(list_skb))) {
> + DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> if (skb_orphan_frags(list_skb, GFP_ATOMIC) ||
> skb_zerocopy_clone(nskb, list_skb,
> GFP_ATOMIC))
>
> --
> 2.55.0
>
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |