Re: [PATCH] sctp: fix a potential missing-check bug

[Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>]

Hi Wenwen,

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Wenwen Wang wrote:
> In sctp_setsockopt_maxseg(), the integer 'val' is compared against min_len
> and max_len to check whether it is in the appropriate range. If it is not,
> an error code -EINVAL will be returned. This is enforced by a security
> check. But, this check is only executed when 'val' is not 0. In fact, if

Which makes sense, no? Especially if considering that 0 should be an
allowed value as it turns off the user limit.

> 'val' is 0, it will be assigned with a new value (if the return value of
> the function sctp_id2assoc() is not 0) in the following execution. However,
> this new value of 'val' is not checked before it is used to assigned to

Which 'new value'? val is not set to something new during the
function. It always contains the user supplied value.

> asoc->user_frag. That means it is possible that the new value of 'val'
> could be out of the expected range. This can cause security issues
> such as buffer overflows, e.g., the new value of 'val' is used as an index
> to access a buffer.
>
> This patch inserts a check for the new value of 'val' to see if it is in
> the expected range. If it is not, an error code -EINVAL will be returned.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang <wang6495@umn.edu>
> ---
>  net/sctp/socket.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> index 80835ac..2beb601 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> @@ -3212,6 +3212,7 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_maxseg(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, unsigned
>  	struct sctp_af *af = sp->pf->af;
>  	struct sctp_assoc_value params;
>  	struct sctp_association *asoc;
> +	int min_len, max_len;
>  	int val;
>
>  	if (optlen = sizeof(int)) {
> @@ -3231,19 +3232,15 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_maxseg(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, unsigned
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>
> -	if (val) {
> -		int min_len, max_len;
> +	min_len = SCTP_DEFAULT_MINSEGMENT - af->net_header_len;
> +	min_len -= af->ip_options_len(sk);
> +	min_len -= sizeof(struct sctphdr) +
> +		   sizeof(struct sctp_data_chunk);

On which tree did you base your patch on? Your patch lacks a tag so it
defaults to net-next, and I reworked this section on current net-next
and these MTU calculcations are now handled by sctp_mtu_payload().

But even for net tree, I don't understand which issue you're fixing
here. Actually it seems to me that both codes seems to do the same
thing.

>
> -		min_len = SCTP_DEFAULT_MINSEGMENT - af->net_header_len;
> -		min_len -= af->ip_options_len(sk);
> -		min_len -= sizeof(struct sctphdr) +
> -			   sizeof(struct sctp_data_chunk);
> +	max_len = SCTP_MAX_CHUNK_LEN - sizeof(struct sctp_data_chunk);
>
> -		max_len = SCTP_MAX_CHUNK_LEN - sizeof(struct sctp_data_chunk);
> -
> -		if (val < min_len || val > max_len)
> -			return -EINVAL;
> -	}
> +	if (val && (val < min_len || val > max_len))
> +		return -EINVAL;
>
>  	asoc = sctp_id2assoc(sk, params.assoc_id);
>  	if (asoc) {
> @@ -3253,6 +3250,8 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_maxseg(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, unsigned
>  			val -= sizeof(struct sctphdr) +
>  			       sctp_datachk_len(&asoc->stream);
>  		}
> +		if (val < min_len || val > max_len)
> +			return -EINVAL;
>  		asoc->user_frag = val;
>  		asoc->frag_point = sctp_frag_point(asoc, asoc->pathmtu);
>  	} else {
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>