Commit c301f098 authored by Dan Carpenter's avatar Dan Carpenter Committed by Pablo Neira Ayuso

netfilter: nf_tables: fix pointer math issue in nft_byteorder_eval()

The problem is in nft_byteorder_eval() where we are iterating through a
loop and writing to dst[0], dst[1], dst[2] and so on...  On each
iteration we are writing 8 bytes.  But dst[] is an array of u32 so each
element only has space for 4 bytes.  That means that every iteration
overwrites part of the previous element.

I spotted this bug while reviewing commit caf3ef74 ("netfilter:
nf_tables: prevent OOB access in nft_byteorder_eval") which is a related
issue.  I think that the reason we have not detected this bug in testing
is that most of time we only write one element.

Fixes: ce1e7989 ("netfilter: nft_byteorder: provide 64bit le/be conversion")
Signed-off-by: default avatarDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
parent a44af08e
...@@ -178,9 +178,9 @@ static inline __be32 nft_reg_load_be32(const u32 *sreg) ...@@ -178,9 +178,9 @@ static inline __be32 nft_reg_load_be32(const u32 *sreg)
return *(__force __be32 *)sreg; return *(__force __be32 *)sreg;
} }
static inline void nft_reg_store64(u32 *dreg, u64 val) static inline void nft_reg_store64(u64 *dreg, u64 val)
{ {
put_unaligned(val, (u64 *)dreg); put_unaligned(val, dreg);
} }
static inline u64 nft_reg_load64(const u32 *sreg) static inline u64 nft_reg_load64(const u32 *sreg)
......
...@@ -38,13 +38,14 @@ void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, ...@@ -38,13 +38,14 @@ void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr,
switch (priv->size) { switch (priv->size) {
case 8: { case 8: {
u64 *dst64 = (void *)dst;
u64 src64; u64 src64;
switch (priv->op) { switch (priv->op) {
case NFT_BYTEORDER_NTOH: case NFT_BYTEORDER_NTOH:
for (i = 0; i < priv->len / 8; i++) { for (i = 0; i < priv->len / 8; i++) {
src64 = nft_reg_load64(&src[i]); src64 = nft_reg_load64(&src[i]);
nft_reg_store64(&dst[i], nft_reg_store64(&dst64[i],
be64_to_cpu((__force __be64)src64)); be64_to_cpu((__force __be64)src64));
} }
break; break;
...@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, ...@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr,
for (i = 0; i < priv->len / 8; i++) { for (i = 0; i < priv->len / 8; i++) {
src64 = (__force __u64) src64 = (__force __u64)
cpu_to_be64(nft_reg_load64(&src[i])); cpu_to_be64(nft_reg_load64(&src[i]));
nft_reg_store64(&dst[i], src64); nft_reg_store64(&dst64[i], src64);
} }
break; break;
} }
......
...@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ nft_meta_get_eval_time(enum nft_meta_keys key, ...@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ nft_meta_get_eval_time(enum nft_meta_keys key,
{ {
switch (key) { switch (key) {
case NFT_META_TIME_NS: case NFT_META_TIME_NS:
nft_reg_store64(dest, ktime_get_real_ns()); nft_reg_store64((u64 *)dest, ktime_get_real_ns());
break; break;
case NFT_META_TIME_DAY: case NFT_META_TIME_DAY:
nft_reg_store8(dest, nft_meta_weekday()); nft_reg_store8(dest, nft_meta_weekday());
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment