Hi,
Recently, when I ran syzkaller, the following warning was detected:
[ 37.446619][ T8620] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 37.447395][ T8620] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 8620 at lib/nlattr.c:118 nla_get_range_unsigned+0x199/0x460
[ 37.448059][ T8620] Modules linked in:
[ 37.448350][ T8620] CPU: 2 PID: 8620 Comm: repro Not tainted 6.2.0 #1
[ 37.448817][ T8620] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.1-2.fc37 04/01/2014
[ 37.449485][ T8620] RIP: 0010:nla_get_range_unsigned+0x199/0x460
[ 37.449927][ T8620] Code: 0f 85 34 02 00 00 a9 08 00 08 00 0f 85 35 02 00 00 e8 9b 55 37 fd 0f 0b 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 5d e9 8c 55 37 fd e8 87 55 37 fd <0f> 0b e9 50 4
[ 37.451445][ T8620] RSP: 0018:ffffc900132873a0 EFLAGS: 00010293
[ 37.451883][ T8620] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffff8b7cff40 RCX: 0000000000000000
[ 37.452443][ T8620] RDX: ffff88801f018000 RSI: ffffffff844dde29 RDI: 0000000000000003
[ 37.452997][ T8620] RBP: ffffc900132873c0 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000000
[ 37.453555][ T8620] R10: 000000000000ffff R11: ffffffff8f9ebb5f R12: ffffc90013287468
[ 37.454114][ T8620] R13: ffffffff8b7cff41 R14: 000000000000ffff R15: ffff888022c24614
[ 37.454671][ T8620] FS: 00007f32f97ff600(0000) GS:ffff88802cb00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 37.455297][ T8620] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 37.455764][ T8620] CR2: 00007f32f95c1585 CR3: 000000004d37e000 CR4: 0000000000750ee0
[ 37.456320][ T8620] PKRU: 55555554
[ 37.456582][ T8620] Call Trace:
[ 37.456828][ T8620] <TASK>
[ 37.457050][ T8620] __nla_validate_parse+0x164e/0x24d0
[ 37.457461][ T8620] ? nla_get_range_signed+0x370/0x370
[ 37.457851][ T8620] ? kasan_unpoison+0x44/0x70
[ 37.458199][ T8620] __nla_parse+0x40/0x50
[ 37.458512][ T8620] genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse.constprop.0+0x19e/0x280
[ 37.459025][ T8620] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit.isra.0+0xa3/0x2e0
[ 37.459461][ T8620] ? genl_start+0x650/0x650
[ 37.459790][ T8620] ? apparmor_capable+0x1da/0x4e0
[ 37.460158][ T8620] ? bpf_lsm_capable+0x9/0x10
[ 37.460500][ T8620] ? security_capable+0x92/0xc0
[ 37.460884][ T8620] ? ns_capable+0xd5/0x110
[ 37.461221][ T8620] genl_rcv_msg+0x4fe/0x7c0
[ 37.461552][ T8620] ? genl_family_rcv_msg_doit.isra.0+0x2e0/0x2e0
[ 37.462002][ T8620] ? nl80211_post_doit+0x2f0/0x2f0
[ 37.462378][ T8620] ? nl80211_assoc_bss+0x260/0x260
[ 37.462749][ T8620] ? nl80211_parse_sta_wme+0x3c0/0x3c0
[ 37.463156][ T8620] netlink_rcv_skb+0x166/0x440
[ 37.463506][ T8620] ? genl_family_rcv_msg_doit.isra.0+0x2e0/0x2e0
[ 37.463955][ T8620] ? netlink_ack+0x1370/0x1370
[ 37.464317][ T8620] genl_rcv+0x28/0x40
[ 37.464610][ T8620] netlink_unicast+0x530/0x800
[ 37.464963][ T8620] ? netlink_attachskb+0x880/0x880
[ 37.465339][ T8620] ? __sanitizer_cov_trace_switch+0x54/0x90
[ 37.465764][ T8620] ? __phys_addr_symbol+0x30/0x70
[ 37.467377][ T8620] ? __check_object_size+0x333/0x6f0
[ 37.468983][ T8620] netlink_sendmsg+0x90b/0xe10
[ 37.470566][ T8620] ? netlink_unicast+0x800/0x800
[ 37.472194][ T8620] ? bpf_lsm_socket_sendmsg+0x9/0x10
[ 37.473787][ T8620] ? netlink_unicast+0x800/0x800
[ 37.475357][ T8620] sock_sendmsg+0xd9/0x180
[ 37.476862][ T8620] ____sys_sendmsg+0x66d/0x910
[ 37.478373][ T8620] ? kernel_sendmsg+0x50/0x50
[ 37.479854][ T8620] ? __copy_msghdr+0x460/0x460
[ 37.481366][ T8620] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
[ 37.482806][ T8620] ___sys_sendmsg+0x11d/0x1b0
[ 37.484179][ T8620] ? do_recvmmsg+0x700/0x700
[ 37.485476][ T8620] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x410/0x410
[ 37.486756][ T8620] ? file_tty_write.constprop.0+0x619/0x9f0
[ 37.488014][ T8620] ? n_tty_close+0x1f0/0x1f0
[ 37.489163][ T8620] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
[ 37.490296][ T8620] ? __fget_light+0x205/0x270
[ 37.491424][ T8620] __sys_sendmsg+0xfa/0x1d0
[ 37.492506][ T8620] ? __sys_sendmsg_sock+0x30/0x30
[ 37.493572][ T8620] ? __audit_syscall_entry+0x396/0x500
[ 37.494639][ T8620] do_syscall_64+0x38/0xb0
[ 37.495634][ T8620] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
I investigated this issue and found that the issue relates to the
following commit:
d7c1a9a0ed18 wifi: nl80211: validate and configure puncturing bitmap
This commit sets the maximum value of nla_policy for
NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP to 0xffff as below:
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
index c82c66c32faa..683adeb3c9e3 100644
--- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c
+++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
@@ -805,6 +805,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy nl80211_policy[NUM_NL80211_ATTR] = {
[NL80211_ATTR_MLD_ADDR] = NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(ETH_ALEN),
[NL80211_ATTR_MLO_SUPPORT] = { .type = NLA_FLAG },
[NL80211_ATTR_MAX_NUM_AKM_SUITES] = { .type = NLA_REJECT },
+ [NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U8, 0, 0xffff),
};
This triggers the warning in nla_get_range_unsigned() below as 0xffff
is interpreted to -1:
void nla_get_range_unsigned(const struct nla_policy *pt,
struct netlink_range_validation *range)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(pt->validation_type != NLA_VALIDATE_RANGE_PTR &&
(pt->min < 0 || pt->max < 0));
I also noticed that checking the value to 0xffff is a bit different in
the following original patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230131001227.25014-3-quic_alokad@xxxxxxxxxxx/
So, I tried to modify the code like below, then the issue disappeared:
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
index 112b4bb009c8..066061fbeeb3 100644
--- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c
+++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
@@ -805,7 +805,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy nl80211_policy[NUM_NL80211_ATTR] = {
[NL80211_ATTR_MLD_ADDR] = NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(ETH_ALEN),
[NL80211_ATTR_MLO_SUPPORT] = { .type = NLA_FLAG },
[NL80211_ATTR_MAX_NUM_AKM_SUITES] = { .type = NLA_REJECT },
- [NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U8, 0, 0xffff),
+ [NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
};
/* policy for the key attributes */
@@ -3183,9 +3183,15 @@ static int nl80211_parse_punct_bitmap(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
const struct cfg80211_chan_def *chandef,
u16 *punct_bitmap)
{
+ u32 bitmap;
+
if (!wiphy_ext_feature_isset(&rdev->wiphy, NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_PUNCT))
return -EINVAL;
+ bitmap = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP]);
+ if (bitmap & 0xFFFF0000)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
*punct_bitmap = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_PUNCT_BITMAP]);
if (!cfg80211_valid_disable_subchannel_bitmap(punct_bitmap, chandef))
return -EINVAL;
Is there any special reason to move checking the value to 0xffff in
nla_policy? Otherwise, is this a bug of the warning in
nla_get_range_unsigned()?
Thanks,
Shigeru
