[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102251150.33261.sgrubb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:50:33 -0500
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@...lice.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: libcgroup: Failure to verify netlink messages
On Friday, February 25, 2011 10:43:20 am Nelson Elhage wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:20:02AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > The current patch does not check if (from_nla_len != sizeof(from_nla))
> > before making decisions based on the header. I contacted upstream about
> > this.
>
> From my reading of the netlink code, recvmsg() / recvfrom() on a netlink
> socket will never return a from_nla_len != sizeof(struct sockaddaddr_nl).
> Am I missing something, did this change at some point, or are you just
> suggesting general paranoid good practice? It's probably good advice in
> any case, I'm just curious whether you're aware of cases where this can
> actually be a problem.
I don't know what is considered the ultimate authority on this. You can look at libnl
in lib/nl.c you find this:
466 if (msg.msg_namelen != sizeof(struct sockaddr_nl)) {
467 free(msg.msg_control);
468 free(*buf);
469 return -NLE_NOADDR;
470 }
There are many projects that do something similar. However, looking at glibc, they do
other kinds of validation like the sequence number.
-Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
