> Subject: Re: [Patch v4] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request through
> kmalloc
>
> On 4/20/2018 2:41 PM, Long Li wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [Patch v4] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request
> >> through kmalloc
> >>
> >> Looks good, but I have two possibly style-related comments.
> >>
> >> On 4/19/2018 5:38 PM, Long Li wrote:
> >>> From: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The data buffer allocated on the stack can't be DMA'ed,
> >>> ib_dma_map_page will return an invalid DMA address for a buffer on
> >>> stack. Even worse, this incorrect address can't be detected by
> >>> ib_dma_mapping_error. Sending data from this address to hardware
> >>> will not fail, but the remote peer will get junk data.
> >>>
> >>> Fix this by allocating the request on the heap in
> smb3_validate_negotiate.
> >>>
> >>> Changes in v2:
> >>> Removed duplicated code on freeing buffers on function exit.
> >>> (Thanks to Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>) Fixed typo in the
> >>> patch title.
> >>>
> >>> Changes in v3:
> >>> Added "Fixes" to the patch.
> >>> Changed several sizeof() to use *pointer in place of struct.
> >>>
> >>> Changes in v4:
> >>> Added detailed comments on the failure through RDMA.
> >>> Allocate request buffer using GPF_NOFS.
> >>> Fixed possible memory leak.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: ff1c038addc4 ("Check SMB3 dialects against downgrade
> >>> attacks")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c | 61
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >> -----------
> >>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c index
> >>> 0f044c4..caa2a1e 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
> >>> @@ -729,8 +729,8 @@ SMB2_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct
> >>> cifs_ses *ses)
> >>>
> >>> int smb3_validate_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon
> *tcon)
> >>> {
> >>> - int rc = 0;
> >>> - struct validate_negotiate_info_req vneg_inbuf;
> >>> + int ret, rc = -EIO;
> >>
> >> Seems awkward to have "rc" and "ret", and based on the code below I
> >> don't see why two variables are needed. Simplify? (see later comment)
> >
> > This is for addressing a prior comment to reduce duplicate code. All
> > the failure paths (after issuing I/O) returning -EIO, there are 5 of
> > them. Set rc to -EIO at the beginning so we don’t need to set it multiple
> times.
>
> Well, ok but now there are semi-duplicate and rather confusing "rc"
> and "ret" local variables, only one of which is actually returned.
>
> How about a "goto err" with unconditonal -EIO, and just leave the "return 0"
> path alone, like it was? That would be much clearer IMO.
That means we'll have to call kfree(pneg_rsp) and kfree(pneg_inbuf) on the return 0 path,
as well as the return -EIO path.
I'm happy to do that if there is no objection.
>
> As-is, I needed to read it several times to convince myself the right rc was
> returned.
>
> Tom,
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> + struct validate_negotiate_info_req *pneg_inbuf;
> >>> struct validate_negotiate_info_rsp *pneg_rsp = NULL;
> >>> u32 rsplen;
> >>> u32 inbuflen; /* max of 4 dialects */ @@ -741,7 +741,6 @@ int
> >>> smb3_validate_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon)
> >>> if (tcon->ses->server->rdma)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> #endif
> >>> -
> >>> /* In SMB3.11 preauth integrity supersedes validate negotiate */
> >>> if (tcon->ses->server->dialect == SMB311_PROT_ID)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> @@ -764,63 +763,67 @@ int smb3_validate_negotiate(const unsigned
> int
> >> xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon)
> >>> if (tcon->ses->session_flags & SMB2_SESSION_FLAG_IS_NULL)
> >>> cifs_dbg(VFS, "Unexpected null user (anonymous) auth flag
> >> sent by
> >>> server\n");
> >>>
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Capabilities =
> >>> + pneg_inbuf = kmalloc(sizeof(*pneg_inbuf), GFP_NOFS);
> >>> + if (!pneg_inbuf)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Capabilities =
> >>> cpu_to_le32(tcon->ses->server->vals-
> >>> req_capabilities);
> >>> - memcpy(vneg_inbuf.Guid, tcon->ses->server->client_guid,
> >>> + memcpy(pneg_inbuf->Guid, tcon->ses->server->client_guid,
> >>> SMB2_CLIENT_GUID_SIZE);
> >>>
> >>> if (tcon->ses->sign)
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.SecurityMode =
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->SecurityMode =
> >>>
> >> cpu_to_le16(SMB2_NEGOTIATE_SIGNING_REQUIRED);
> >>> else if (global_secflags & CIFSSEC_MAY_SIGN)
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.SecurityMode =
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->SecurityMode =
> >>>
> >> cpu_to_le16(SMB2_NEGOTIATE_SIGNING_ENABLED);
> >>> else
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.SecurityMode = 0;
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->SecurityMode = 0;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> if (strcmp(tcon->ses->server->vals->version_string,
> >>> SMB3ANY_VERSION_STRING) == 0) {
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[0] = cpu_to_le16(SMB30_PROT_ID);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[1] = cpu_to_le16(SMB302_PROT_ID);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(2);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[0] = cpu_to_le16(SMB30_PROT_ID);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[1] = cpu_to_le16(SMB302_PROT_ID);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(2);
> >>> /* structure is big enough for 3 dialects, sending only 2 */
> >>> inbuflen = sizeof(struct validate_negotiate_info_req) - 2;
> >>
> >> The "- 2" is a little confusing here. This was existing code, but I
> >> suggest you change this to a sizeof (u16) construct for consistency.
> >> It's reducing by the length of a single Dialects[n] entry.
> >>
> >>> } else if (strcmp(tcon->ses->server->vals->version_string,
> >>> SMBDEFAULT_VERSION_STRING) == 0) {
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[0] = cpu_to_le16(SMB21_PROT_ID);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[1] = cpu_to_le16(SMB30_PROT_ID);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[2] = cpu_to_le16(SMB302_PROT_ID);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(3);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[0] = cpu_to_le16(SMB21_PROT_ID);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[1] = cpu_to_le16(SMB30_PROT_ID);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[2] = cpu_to_le16(SMB302_PROT_ID);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(3);
> >>> /* structure is big enough for 3 dialects */
> >>> inbuflen = sizeof(struct validate_negotiate_info_req);
> >>> } else {
> >>> /* otherwise specific dialect was requested */
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.Dialects[0] =
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Dialects[0] =
> >>> cpu_to_le16(tcon->ses->server->vals->protocol_id);
> >>> - vneg_inbuf.DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(1);
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->DialectCount = cpu_to_le16(1);
> >>> /* structure is big enough for 3 dialects, sending only 1 */
> >>> inbuflen = sizeof(struct validate_negotiate_info_req) - 4;
> >>
> >> Ditto previous sizeof (u16) comment, with a *2 this case.
> >>
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - rc = SMB2_ioctl(xid, tcon, NO_FILE_ID, NO_FILE_ID,
> >>> + ret = SMB2_ioctl(xid, tcon, NO_FILE_ID, NO_FILE_ID,
> >>> FSCTL_VALIDATE_NEGOTIATE_INFO, true /* is_fsctl */,
> >>> - (char *)&vneg_inbuf, sizeof(struct
> >> validate_negotiate_info_req),
> >>> + (char *)pneg_inbuf, sizeof(*pneg_inbuf),
> >>> (char **)&pneg_rsp, &rsplen);
> >>>
> >>> - if (rc != 0) {
> >>> - cifs_dbg(VFS, "validate protocol negotiate failed: %d\n", rc);
> >>> - return -EIO;
> >>> + if (ret) {
> >>> + cifs_dbg(VFS, "validate protocol negotiate failed: %d\n", ret);
> >>> + goto out_free_inbuf;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Why not leave "rc" alone, and set its value to -EIO before the goto
> >> if the ioctl fails? That will simplify and make the code much more readable
> IMO.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - if (rsplen != sizeof(struct validate_negotiate_info_rsp)) {
> >>> + if (rsplen != sizeof(*pneg_rsp)) {
> >>> cifs_dbg(VFS, "invalid protocol negotiate response
> >> size: %d\n",
> >>> rsplen);
> >>>
> >>> /* relax check since Mac returns max bufsize allowed on ioctl
> >> */
> >>> if ((rsplen > CIFSMaxBufSize)
> >>> || (rsplen < sizeof(struct validate_negotiate_info_rsp)))
> >>> - goto err_rsp_free;
> >>> + goto out_free_rsp;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Would need an rc = -EIO here too if above comment is accepted.
> >>
> >> Tom.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> /* check validate negotiate info response matches what we got
> >>> earlier */ @@ -838,14 +841,16 @@ int smb3_validate_negotiate(const
> >>> unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon)
> >>>
> >>> /* validate negotiate successful */
> >>> cifs_dbg(FYI, "validate negotiate info successful\n");
> >>> - kfree(pneg_rsp);
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + rc = 0;
> >>> + goto out_free_rsp;
> >>>
> >>> vneg_out:
> >>> cifs_dbg(VFS, "protocol revalidation - security settings
> >>> mismatch\n");
> >>> -err_rsp_free:
> >>> +out_free_rsp:
> >>> kfree(pneg_rsp);
> >>> - return -EIO;
> >>> +out_free_inbuf:
> >>> + kfree(pneg_inbuf);
> >>> + return rc;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> enum securityEnum
> >>>
> > N r y b X ǧv ^ ){.n + { ٚ {ay ʇڙ ,j f h z w
>
> j:+v w j m zZ+ ݢj" !tml=
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the
> body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvger.ke
> rnel.org%2Fmajordomo-
> info.html&data=02%7C01%7Clongli%40microsoft.com%7C713a34e4889147ee
> d4fd08d5a6ef951e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63
> 6598470290134086&sdata=RfS2Gs9cqoxkofoFtqcMTtSquLOZD09ffLhdlWCj2S
> 4%3D&reserved=0
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
