On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:17 PM Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
> Fixes: d05dcd94ae ("net: vmxnet3: validate configuration values during
> activate (CVE-2021-20203)")
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> I'm not familiar with this code, so really I'm asking: is the change
> justified?
Patch looks good, but please re-submit with a formal one with
rationals via changelog.
Thanks
>
> I tested the change and it seems to work, but I only have some rough
> rationale for it, which is also why there's no commit message yet.
>
> In the Linux kernel's net/core/dev.c, in dev_validate_mtu(), the upper
> limit itself is a valid value:
> if (dev->max_mtu > 0 && new_mtu > dev->max_mtu) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "mtu greater than device maximum");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> and AFAICT in the case of the vmxnet3 driver, max_mtu is set to
> VMXNET3_MAX_MTU (as defined in the kernel, which is 9000, same as in
> QEMU).
>
> Reported by one of our users running into the failing assert():
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/114011/#post-492916
>
> hw/net/vmxnet3.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/net/vmxnet3.c b/hw/net/vmxnet3.c
> index 0b7acf7f89..a2037583bf 100644
> --- a/hw/net/vmxnet3.c
> +++ b/hw/net/vmxnet3.c
> @@ -1441,7 +1441,7 @@ static void vmxnet3_activate_device(VMXNET3State *s)
> vmxnet3_setup_rx_filtering(s);
> /* Cache fields from shared memory */
> s->mtu = VMXNET3_READ_DRV_SHARED32(d, s->drv_shmem, devRead.misc.mtu);
> - assert(VMXNET3_MIN_MTU <= s->mtu && s->mtu < VMXNET3_MAX_MTU);
> + assert(VMXNET3_MIN_MTU <= s->mtu && s->mtu <= VMXNET3_MAX_MTU);
> VMW_CFPRN("MTU is %u", s->mtu);
>
> s->max_rx_frags =
> --
> 2.30.2
>
>
