From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DDCA0679
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:02:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09541B11A;
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:02:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A971B112;
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:02:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
29 Apr 2019 07:02:23 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,409,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="168958228"
Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.113])
([10.237.220.113])
by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2019 07:02:21 -0700
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Herakliusz Lipiec <herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>,
Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, rasland@mellanox.com, stable@dpdk.org
References: <20190425164700.30948-1-herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
<20190425171702.933-1-herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
<e48cc6b9-b87c-063f-da09-88b976842a41@intel.com>
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <f9501450-62a5-ffa2-c995-af39dce1f516@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:02:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e48cc6b9-b87c-063f-da09-88b976842a41@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/tap: fix potential buffer overrun
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190429140220.ZtI5WNC_AHkw4GF7KLl7IDgVbDcWoO9BjqAe31U5N_w@z>
On 29-Apr-19 2:53 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/25/2019 6:17 PM, Herakliusz Lipiec wrote:
>> When secondary to primary process synchronization occours
>> there is no check for number of fds which could cause buffer overrun.
>>
>> Bugzilla ID: 252
>> Fixes: c9aa56edec8e ("net/tap: access primary process queues from secondary")
>> Cc: rasland@mellanox.com
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Herakliusz Lipiec <herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> index e9fda8cf6..4a2ef5ce7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> @@ -2111,6 +2111,10 @@ tap_mp_attach_queues(const char *port_name, struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>> TAP_LOG(DEBUG, "Received IPC reply for %s", reply_param->port_name);
>>
>> /* Attach the queues from received file descriptors */
>> + if (reply_param->rxq_count + reply_param->txq_count != reply->num_fds) {
>> + TAP_LOG(ERR, "Unexpected number of fds received");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>
> Is there a way this can happen? If not I suggest remove the check.
Normally no, but theoretically this can trigger a buffer overrun if not
checked. After all, something could either fail on the other side, or
someone could send a fake message :) This data is coming from an
external source, so we need to sanity-check it.
>
>> dev->data->nb_rx_queues = reply_param->rxq_count;
>> dev->data->nb_tx_queues = reply_param->txq_count;
>> fd_iterator = 0;
>> @@ -2151,12 +2155,16 @@ tap_mp_sync_queues(const struct rte_mp_msg *request, const void *peer)
>> /* Fill file descriptors for all queues */
>> reply.num_fds = 0;
>> reply_param->rxq_count = 0;
>> + if (dev->data->nb_rx_queues + dev->data->nb_tx_queues >
>> + RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM){
>> + TAP_LOG(ERR, "Number of rx/tx queues exceeds max number of fds");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>
> +1 for the check.
> But what it does when return "-1", not send a message at all? If so would it be
> better to send and error message back instead of waiting the receiver to timeout?
There will be a different patch fixing this specific issue. Probably
this patch would need to be rebased on top of that.
>
>> for (queue = 0; queue < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; queue++) {
>> reply.fds[reply.num_fds++] = process_private->rxq_fds[queue];
>> reply_param->rxq_count++;
>> }
>> RTE_ASSERT(reply_param->rxq_count == dev->data->nb_rx_queues);
>> - RTE_ASSERT(reply_param->txq_count == dev->data->nb_tx_queues);
>> RTE_ASSERT(reply.num_fds <= RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM);
>
> Since there is dynamic check above for "RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM", we can remove this
> assert I think.
>
>>
>> reply_param->txq_count = 0;
>> @@ -2164,7 +2172,8 @@ tap_mp_sync_queues(const struct rte_mp_msg *request, const void *peer)
>> reply.fds[reply.num_fds++] = process_private->txq_fds[queue];
>> reply_param->txq_count++;
>> }
>> -
>> + RTE_ASSERT(reply_param->txq_count == dev->data->nb_tx_queues);
>> + RTE_ASSERT(reply.num_fds <= RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM);
>
> Same for this assert, we can remove it.
> And as syntax, please keep the empty line before next block.
>
>> /* Send reply */
>> strlcpy(reply.name, request->name, sizeof(reply.name));
>> strlcpy(reply_param->port_name, request_param->port_name,
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly