[net-next,1/1] driver: ipvlan: Add the sanity check for ipvlan mode

From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>

The ipvlan mode variable "nval" is from userspace, so the ipvlan codes
should check if the mode variable "nval" is valid.

Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
---
 drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:23 AM,  <fgao@ikuai8.com> wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>
> The ipvlan mode variable "nval" is from userspace, so the ipvlan codes
> should check if the mode variable "nval" is valid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> index ab90b22..537b5a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static int ipvlan_set_port_mode(struct ipvl_port *port, u16 nval)
>         struct net_device *mdev = port->dev;
>         int err = 0;
>
> +       if (nval >= IPVLAN_MODE_MAX)
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
I'm curious to know how you encountered this issue? The values are
validated in ipvlan_nl_validate() and it should fail at that time
itself.
>         ASSERT_RTNL();
>         if (port->mode != nval) {
>                 if (nval == IPVLAN_MODE_L3S) {
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>

From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@google.com>

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:02:45 -0800

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:23 AM, <fgao@ikuai8.com> wrote:

> 

>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>

>>

>> The ipvlan mode variable "nval" is from userspace, so the ipvlan codes

>> should check if the mode variable "nval" is valid.

>>

>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>

>> ---

>>  drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 3 +++

>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

>>

>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_

>> main.c

>> index ab90b22..537b5a9 100644

>> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c

>> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c

>> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static int ipvlan_set_port_mode(struct ipvl_port *port,

>> u16 nval)

>>         struct net_device *mdev = port->dev;

>>         int err = 0;

>>

>> +       if (nval >= IPVLAN_MODE_MAX)

>> +               return -EINVAL;

>> +

>>

> I'm curious to know how you encountered this issue? The values are

> validated in ipvlan_nl_validate() and it should fail at that time itself.


I'm not applying this without at least a better explanation.

Hi David & Mahesh,

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:08 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@google.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:02:45 -0800
>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:23 AM, <fgao@ikuai8.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>>>
>>> The ipvlan mode variable "nval" is from userspace, so the ipvlan codes
>>> should check if the mode variable "nval" is valid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 3 +++
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_
>>> main.c
>>> index ab90b22..537b5a9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>>> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static int ipvlan_set_port_mode(struct ipvl_port *port,
>>> u16 nval)
>>>         struct net_device *mdev = port->dev;
>>>         int err = 0;
>>>
>>> +       if (nval >= IPVLAN_MODE_MAX)
>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>
>> I'm curious to know how you encountered this issue? The values are
>> validated in ipvlan_nl_validate() and it should fail at that time itself.
>
> I'm not applying this without at least a better explanation.

Sorry, I didn't find the function "ipvlan_nl_validate" during reading
the ipvlan codes.

Regards
Feng