linux-stable.git/lib/nlattr.c, branch v5.8.2

netlink: factor out policy range helpers

2020-05-01T00:51:42+00:00

Add helpers to get the policy's signed/unsigned range
validation data.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: remove NLA_EXACT_LEN_WARN

2020-05-01T00:51:42+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: allow NLA_MSECS to have range validation

2020-05-01T00:51:42+00:00

Since NLA_MSECS is really equivalent to NLA_U64, allow
it to have range validation as well.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: extend policy range validation

2020-05-01T00:51:42+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: limit recursion depth in policy validation

2020-05-01T00:51:41+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: remove type-unsafe validation_data pointer

2020-05-01T00:51:41+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: add validation of NLA_F_NESTED flag

2019-05-04T05:27:11+00:00

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 

v2: change error messages to mention NLA_F_NESTED explicitly
Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg 
Reviewed-by: David Ahern 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: set bad attribute also on maxtype check

2019-05-04T05:27:10+00:00

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 
Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg 
Reviewed-by: David Ahern 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: add strict parsing for future attributes

2019-04-27T21:07:22+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness

2019-04-27T21:07:21+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller