From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
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
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/tap: fix potential buffer overrun
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:02:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f9501450-62a5-ffa2-c995-af39dce1f516@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e48cc6b9-b87c-063f-da09-88b976842a41@intel.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-29 14:02 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 [this message]
2019-04-30 10:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-04-29 13:58 ` [dpdk-stable] " Wiles, Keith
2019-04-29 14:05 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " 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=f9501450-62a5-ffa2-c995-af39dce1f516@intel.com \
--to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@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).