Re: [PATCH] vhost/vsock: accept only packets with the right dst_cid

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Thu Dec 12 2019 - 07:56:36 EST

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:36:24PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:03:07AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:39:12PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > When we receive a new packet from the guest, we check if the
> > > src_cid is correct, but we forgot to check the dst_cid.
> > >
> > > The host should accept only packets where dst_cid is
> > > equal to the host CID.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Stefano can you clarify the impact pls?
> Sure, I'm sorry I didn't do it earlier.
> > E.g. is this needed on stable? Etc.
> This is a better analysis (I hope) when there is a malformed guest
> that sends a packet with a wrong dst_cid:
> - before v5.4 we supported only one transport at runtime, so the sockets
> in the host can only receive packets from guests. In this case, if
> the dst_cid is wrong, maybe the only issue is that the getsockname()
> returns an inconsistent address (the cid returned is the one received
> from the guest)
> - from v5.4 we support multi-transport, so the L1 VM (e.g. L0 assigned
> cid 5 to this VM) can have both Guest2Host and Host2Guest transports.
> In this case, we have these possible issues:
> - L2 (or L1) guest can use cid 0, 1, and 2 to reach L1 (or L0),
> instead we should allow only CID_HOST (2) to reach the level below.
> Note: this happens also with not malformed guest that runs Linux v5.4
> - if a malformed L2 guest sends a packet with the wrong dst_cid, for example
> instead of CID_HOST, it uses the cid assigned by L0 to L1 (5 in this
> example), this packets can wrongly queued to a socket on L1 bound to cid 5,
> that only expects connections from L0.

Oh so a security issue?

> Maybe we really need this only on stable v5.4, but the patch is very simple
> and should apply cleanly to all stable branches.
> What do you think?
> Thanks,
> Stefano

I'd say it's better to backport to all stable releases where it applies,
but yes it's only a security issue in 5.4. Dave could you forward pls?