Android userspace has been using TCA_KIND with a char[IFNAMESIZ]
many-null-terminated buffer containing the string 'bpf'.
This works on 4.19 and ceases to work on 5.10.
I'm not entirely sure what fixes tag to use, but I think the issue
was likely introduced in the below mentioned 5.4 commit.
Reported-by: Nucca Chen <nuccachen@google.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Fixes: 62794fc4fb ("net_sched: add max len check for TCA_KIND")
Change-Id: I66dc281f165a2858fc29a44869a270a2d698a82b
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Pull fallthrough fixes from Gustavo A. R. Silva:
"Fix many fall-through warnings when building with Clang 12.0.0
using -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
- powerpc: boot: include compiler_attributes.h (Nick Desaulniers)
- Revert "lib: Revert use of fallthrough pseudo-keyword in lib/"
(Nick Desaulniers)
- powerpc: fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough (Nick Desaulniers)
- lib: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang (Gustavo A. R. Silva)"
* tag 'fallthrough-fixes-clang-5.11-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux:
lib: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
powerpc: fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Revert "lib: Revert use of fallthrough pseudo-keyword in lib/"
powerpc: boot: include compiler_attributes.h
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
warnings by explicitly adding multiple break statements instead of
letting the code fall through to the next case, and by replacing a
number of /* fall through */ comments with the new pseudo-keyword
macro fallthrough.
Notice that Clang doesn't recognize /* Fall through */ comments as
implicit fall-through markings.
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
nla_strlcpy now returns -E2BIG if src was truncated when written to dst.
It also returns this error value if dstsize is 0 or higher than INT_MAX.
For example, if src is "foo\0" and dst is 3 bytes long, the result will be:
1. "foG" after memcpy (G means garbage).
2. "fo\0" after memset.
3. -E2BIG is returned because src was not completely written into dst.
The callers of nla_strlcpy were modified to take into account this modification.
Signed-off-by: Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@privacyrequired.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Before this commit, nla_strlcpy first memseted dst to 0 then wrote src into it.
This is inefficient because bytes whom number is less than src length are written
twice.
This patch solves this issue by first writing src into dst then fill dst with
0's.
Note that, in the case where src length is higher than dst, only 0 is written.
Otherwise there are as many 0's written to fill dst.
For example, if src is "foo\0" and dst is 5 bytes long, the result will be:
1. "fooGG" after memcpy (G means garbage).
2. "foo\0\0" after memset.
Signed-off-by: Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@privacyrequired.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Add a new attribute NLMSGERR_ATTR_POLICY to the extended ACK
to advertise the policy, e.g. if an attribute was out of range,
you'll know the range that's permissible.
Add new NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR_POL() and NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR_POL()
macros to set this, since realistically it's only useful to do
this when the bad attribute (offset) is also returned.
Use it in lib/nlattr.c which practically does all the policy
validation.
v2:
- add and use netlink_policy_dump_attr_size_estimate()
v3:
- remove redundant break
v4:
- really remove redundant break ... sorry
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
We don't have good validation policy for existing unsigned int attrs
which serve as flags (for new ones we could use NLA_BITFIELD32).
With increased use of policy dumping having the validation be
expressed as part of the policy is important. Add validation
policy in form of a mask of supported/valid bits.
Support u64 in the uAPI to be future-proof, but really for now
the embedded mask member can only hold 32 bits, so anything with
bit 32+ set will always fail validation.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
The need for padding 64bit is implicitly checked by nla_align_64bit(), so
remove this explicit one.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Add helpers to get the policy's signed/unsigned range
validation data.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Use a validation type instead, so we can later expose
the NLA_* values to userspace for policy descriptions.
Some transformations were done with this spatch:
@@
identifier p;
expression X, L, A;
@@
struct nla_policy p[X] = {
[A] =
-{ .type = NLA_EXACT_LEN_WARN, .len = L },
+NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN(L),
...
};
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Since NLA_MSECS is really equivalent to NLA_U64, allow
it to have range validation as well.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Using a pointer to a struct indicating the min/max values,
extend the ability to do range validation for arbitrary
values. Small values in the s16 range can be kept in the
policy directly.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Now that we have nested policies, we can theoretically
recurse forever parsing attributes if a (sub-)policy
refers back to a higher level one. This is a situation
that has happened in nl80211, and we've avoided it there
by not linking it.
Add some code to netlink parsing to limit recursion depth.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In the netlink policy, we currently have a void *validation_data
that's pointing to different things:
* a u32 value for bitfield32,
* the netlink policy for nested/nested array
* the string for NLA_REJECT
Remove the pointer and place appropriate type-safe items in the
union instead.
While at it, completely dissolve the pointer for the bitfield32
case and just put the value there directly.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Add new validation flag NL_VALIDATE_NESTED which adds three consistency
checks of NLA_F_NESTED_FLAG:
- the flag is set on attributes with NLA_NESTED{,_ARRAY} policy
- the flag is not set on attributes with other policies except NLA_UNSPEC
- the flag is set on attribute passed to nla_parse_nested()
Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
v2: change error messages to mention NLA_F_NESTED explicitly
Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
The check that attribute type is within 0...maxtype range in
__nla_validate_parse() sets only error message but not bad_attr in extack.
Set also bad_attr to tell userspace which attribute failed validation.
Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Unfortunately, we cannot add strict parsing for all attributes, as
that would break existing userspace. We currently warn about it, but
that's about all we can do.
For new attributes, however, the story is better: nobody is using
them, so we can reject bad sizes.
Also, for new attributes, we need not accept them when the policy
doesn't declare their usage.
David Ahern and I went back and forth on how to best encode this, and
the best way we found was to have a "boundary type", from which point
on new attributes have all possible validation applied, and NLA_UNSPEC
is rejected.
As we didn't want to add another argument to all functions that get a
netlink policy, the workaround is to encode that boundary in the first
entry of the policy array (which is for type 0 and thus probably not
really valid anyway). I put it into the validation union for the rare
possibility that somebody is actually using attribute 0, which would
continue to work fine unless they tried to use the extended validation,
which isn't likely. We also didn't find any in-tree users with type 0.
The reason for setting the "start strict here" attribute is that we
never really need to start strict from 0, which is invalid anyway (or
in legacy families where that isn't true, it cannot be set to strict),
so we can thus reserve the value 0 for "don't do this check" and don't
have to add the tag to all policies right now.
Thus, policies can now opt in to this validation, which we should do
for all existing policies, at least when adding new attributes.
Note that entirely *new* policies won't need to set it, as the use
of that should be using nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc. which anyway
do fully strict validation now, regardless of this.
So in effect, this patch only covers the "existing command with new
attribute" case.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Rather than using NLA_UNSPEC for this type of thing, use NLA_MIN_LEN
so we can make NLA_UNSPEC be NLA_REJECT under certain conditions for
future attributes.
While at it, also use NLA_EXACT_LEN for the struct example.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
nla_parse is currently lenient on message parsing, allowing type to be 0
or greater than max expected and only logging a message
"netlink: %d bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `%s'."
if the netlink message has unknown data at the end after parsing. What this
could mean is that the header at the front of the attributes is actually
wrong and the parsing is shifted from what is expected.
Add a new strict version that actually fails with EINVAL if there are any
bytes remaining after the parsing loop completes, if the atttrbitue type
is 0 or greater than max expected.
Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Add the ability to have an arbitrary validation function attached
to a netlink policy that doesn't already use the validation_data
pointer in another way.
This can be useful to validate for example the content of a binary
attribute, like in nl80211 the "(information) elements", which must
be valid streams of "u8 type, u8 length, u8 value[length]".
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
