From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: "Lipiec, Herakliusz" <herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
"rasland@mellanox.com" <rasland@mellanox.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] net/tap: fix potential buffer overrun
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:58:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7E00796C-D91F-47C4-B957-8561FC26F0E5@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425171702.933-1-herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Lipiec, Herakliusz <herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com> 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;
> + }
This check is reasonable, but why is this being done on the receive side and not checked on the send side. There may need to be a check for num_fds being zero or greater than 8 as that is the limit to the number of FDs that can be handle by the IPC.
In a different thread for Bug-258 we need to return an indicator that the receive side detected an error by returning 0 for num_fds and I have patch for that one.
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258
I would have expected the sender to make sure they match and then this test is not needed, but a test for num_fds being zero or > 8 is needed if you want to detect the failure here or not if you do not care as long as nb_[r/t]x_queues is zero too.
> 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;
> + }
> 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);
>
> 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);
> /* Send reply */
> strlcpy(reply.name, request->name, sizeof(reply.name));
> strlcpy(reply_param->port_name, request_param->port_name,
> --
> 2.17.2
>
Regards,
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-29 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-25 16:47 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] " Herakliusz Lipiec
2019-04-25 17:17 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Herakliusz Lipiec
2019-04-29 13:32 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-29 13:53 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-04-29 14:02 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-30 10:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-04-29 13:58 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2019-04-29 14:05 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-29 17:31 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Herakliusz Lipiec
2019-05-02 16:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7E00796C-D91F-47C4-B957-8561FC26F0E5@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com \
--cc=rasland@mellanox.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).