Re: [PATCH] scsi: storvsc: Fix validation for unsolicited incoming packets

From: Andrea Parri
Date: Wed Oct 06 2021 - 09:39:39 EST


> > > I know you have determined experimentally that Hyper-V sends
> > > unsolicited packets with the above length, so the idea is to validate
> > > that the guest actually gets packets at least that big. But I wonder if
> > > we should think about this slightly differently.
> > >
> > > The goal is for the storvsc driver to protect itself against bad or
> > > malicious messages from Hyper-V. For the unsolicited messages, the
> > > only field that this storvsc driver needs to access is the
> > > vstor_packet->operation field.
> >
> > Eh, this is one piece of information I was looking for... ;-)
>
> I'm just looking at the code in storvsc_on_receive(). storvsc_on_receive()
> itself looks at the "operation" field, but for the REMOVE_DEVICE and
> ENUMERATE_BUS operations, you can see that the rest of the vstor_packet
> is ignored and is not passed to any called functions.
>
> >
> >
> > >So an alternate approach is to set
> > > the minimum length as small as possible while ensuring that field is valid.
> >
> > The fact is, I'm not sure how to do it for unsolicited messages.
> > Current code ensures/checks != COMPLETE_IO. Your comment above
> > and code audit suggest that we should add a check != FCHBA_DATA.
> > I saw ENUMERATE_BUS messages, code only using their "operation".
>
> I'm not completely sure about FCHBA_DATA. That message does not
> seem to be unsolicited, as the guest sends out a message of that type in
> storvsc_channel_init() using storvsc_execute_vstor_op(). So any received
> messages of that type are presumably in response to the guest request,
> and will get handled via the test for rqst_id == VMBUS_RQST_INIT. Long
> Li could probably confirm. So if Hyper-V did send a FCHBA_DATA
> packet with rqst_id of 0, it would seem to be appropriate to reject
> it.
>
> >
> > And, again, this is only based on current code/observations...
> >
> > So, maybe you mean something like this (on top of this patch)?
>
> Yes, with a comment to explain what's going on. :-)

My (current) best guess is here:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211006132026.4089-1-parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx

Thanks,
Andrea