On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:17:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年01月25日 21:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:31:42PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > We try to allocate one more entry for lockless peeking. The adding
> > > operation may overflow which causes zero to be passed to kmalloc().
> > > In this case, it returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR without any notice by ptr
> > > ring. Try to do producing or consuming on such ring will lead NULL
> > > dereference. Fix this detect and fail early.
> > >
> > > Fixes: bcecb4bbf88a ("net: ptr_ring: otherwise safe empty checks can
> > > overrun array bounds")
> > > Reported-by:syzbot+87678bcf753b44c39...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Cc: John Fastabend<john.fastab...@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasow...@redhat.com>
> > Ugh that's just way too ugly.
> > I'll work on dropping the extra + 1 - but calling this
> > function with -1 size is the real source of the bug.
> > Do you know how come we do that?
> >
>
> It looks e.g try to change tx_queue_len to UINT_MAX. And we probably can't
> prevent user form trying to do this?
>
> Thanks
Right. BTW why net-next? Isn't the crash exploitable in net?
