Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] vsock/virtio: Validate length in packet header before skb_put()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 04:20:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
When receiving a vsock packet in the guest, only the virtqueue buffer
size is validated prior to virtio_vsock_skb_rx_put(). Unfortunately,
virtio_vsock_skb_rx_put() uses the length from the packet header as the
length argument to skb_put(), potentially resulting in SKB overflow if
the host has gone wonky.

Validate the length as advertised by the packet header before calling
virtio_vsock_skb_rx_put().

Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 71dc9ec9ac7d ("virtio/vsock: replace virtio_vsock_pkt with sk_buff")
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
index f0e48e6911fc..bd2c6aaa1a93 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
@@ -624,8 +624,9 @@ static void virtio_transport_rx_work(struct work_struct *work)
	do {
		virtqueue_disable_cb(vq);
		for (;;) {
+			unsigned int len, payload_len;
+			struct virtio_vsock_hdr *hdr;
			struct sk_buff *skb;
-			unsigned int len;

			if (!virtio_transport_more_replies(vsock)) {
				/* Stop rx until the device processes already
@@ -642,12 +643,19 @@ static void virtio_transport_rx_work(struct work_struct *work)
			vsock->rx_buf_nr--;

			/* Drop short/long packets */
-			if (unlikely(len < sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_hdr) ||
+			if (unlikely(len < sizeof(*hdr) ||

pre-existing: in some part we use sizeof(*hdr) in other VIRTIO_VSOCK_SKB_HEADROOM, I think we should try to uniform that, but of course not for this series!

				     len > virtio_vsock_skb_len(skb))) {
				kfree_skb(skb);
				continue;
			}

+			hdr = virtio_vsock_hdr(skb);
+			payload_len = le32_to_cpu(hdr->len);
+			if (payload_len > len - sizeof(*hdr)) {

Since this is an hot path, should we use `unlikely`, like in the previous check, to instruct the branch predictor?

The rest LGTM!

Thanks,
Stefano

+				kfree_skb(skb);
+				continue;
+			}
+
			virtio_vsock_skb_rx_put(skb);
			virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(skb);
			virtio_transport_recv_pkt(&virtio_transport, skb);
--
2.50.0.727.gbf7dc18ff4-goog






[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux