Hello. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:28 +0200), Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> But I don't want to induce such large changes in this kernel. The goal of > this test is a preventive measure to catch easily exploitable errors that > might have remained undetected. For instance, a quick glance shows this > portion of code in net/ipv4/raw.c (both 2.4 and 2.6) : > > static int raw_seticmpfilter(struct sock *sk, char *optval, int optlen) > { > if (optlen > sizeof(struct icmp_filter)) > optlen = sizeof(struct icmp_filter); > if (copy_from_user(&sk->tp_pinfo.tp_raw4.filter, optval, optlen)) > return -EFAULT; > return 0; > } > > It only relies on sock_setsockopt() refusing optlen values < sizeof(int), > and this is not documented. Having part of this code being copied for use > in another code path would open a breach for optlen < 0. : > There are two tests in this patch : > > - one on the validity of the optlen address. This one is race-free and > should be conserved anyway. > > - one on the optlen range which is valid for most cases but which is > subject to a race condition and which might be circumvented by > carefully written code and with some luck as in all race conditions > issues. Don't mix getsockopt() and setsockopt() code paths. For setsockopt(), optlen < 0 is checked in net/socket.c:sys_setsockopt(). For getsockopt(), optlen and *optlen < 0 is (and should be) checked (or handled) in each getsockopt function; e.g. do_ip_getsockopt(), raw_geticmpfilter() etc. --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html