Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] hv_sock: Check hv_pkt_iter_first_raw()'s return value

[Andrea Parri]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 02:27:37PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:42 PM
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:33:23AM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > > From: Andrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 13,
> > 2022 1:48 PM
> > > >
> > > > The function returns NULL if the ring buffer has no enough space
> > > > available for a packet descriptor.  The ring buffer's write_index
> > >
> > > The first sentence wording is a bit scrambled.  I think you mean the
> > > ring buffer doesn't contain enough readable bytes to constitute a
> > > packet descriptor.
> > 
> > Indeed, replaced with your working.
> > 
> > 
> > > > is in memory which is shared with the Hyper-V host, its value is
> > > > thus subject to being changed at any time.
> > >
> > > This second sentence is true, but I'm not making the connection
> > > with the code change below.   Evidently, there is some previous
> > > check made to ensure that enough bytes are available to be
> > > received when hvs_stream_dequeue() is called, so we assumed that
> > > NULL could never be returned?  I looked but didn't find such a check,
> > > so maybe I didn't look carefully enough.  But now we are assuming
> > > that Hyper-V might have invalidated that previous check by
> > > subsequently changing the write_index in a bogus way?  So now, NULL
> > > could be returned when previously we assumed it couldn't.
> > 
> > I think you're looking for hvs_stream_has_data().  (Previous checks
> > apart, hvs_stream_dequeue() will "dereference" the pointer so...)
> 
> Agreed.  I didn't say this explicitly, but I was wondering about the risk
> in the current code (without these hardening patches) of getting a
> NULL pointer from hv_pkt_iter_first_raw(), and then dereferencing it.

Got it.  Updated the changelog to:

  "The ring buffer's write_index is in memory which is shared with the
   Hyper-V host, an erroneous or malicious host could thus change its
   value and overturn the result of hvs_stream_has_data()."

Hopefully this can clarify the issue (without introducing other typos).

Thanks,
  Andrea