net/sched/sch_mqprio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: MaherAzzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX is validated using
NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32, TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE), which allows the value
TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE (16). This leads to a 4-byte out-of-bounds stack write in
the fp[] array, which only has room for 16 elements (0–15).
Fix this by changing the policy to allow only up to TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1.
Fixes: f62af20bed2d ("net/sched: mqprio: allow per-TC user input of FP adminStatus")
Reported-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
---
net/sched/sch_mqprio.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c b/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
index 51d4013b6121..f3e5ef9a9592 100644
--- a/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
+++ b/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int mqprio_parse_opt(struct net_device *dev, struct tc_mqprio_qopt *qopt,
static const struct
nla_policy mqprio_tc_entry_policy[TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
[TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX] = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32,
- TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE),
+ TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1),
[TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_FP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32,
TC_FP_EXPRESS,
TC_FP_PREEMPTIBLE),
--
2.34.1
+ Ferenc and Vladimir
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Maher Azzouzi wrote:
> From: MaherAzzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
nit: space between your names please
>
> TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX is validated using
> NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32, TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE), which allows the value
> TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE (16). This leads to a 4-byte out-of-bounds stack write in
> the fp[] array, which only has room for 16 elements (0–15).
>
> Fix this by changing the policy to allow only up to TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1.
>
> Fixes: f62af20bed2d ("net/sched: mqprio: allow per-TC user input of FP adminStatus")
> Reported-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
I don't think there is any need to include a Reported-by tag if
you are also the patch author.
> Signed-off-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
I agree with your analysis and that this is a good fix.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
I do think it is misleading to name this #define MAX,
but it's part of the UAPI so that ship has sailed.
It seems that taprio has a similar problem, but that it is
not a bug due to an additional check. I wonder if something
like this for net-next is appropriate to align it's implementation
wit that of maprio.
diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
index 2b14c81a87e5..e759e43ad27e 100644
--- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
+++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy entry_policy[TCA_TAPRIO_SCHED_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
static const struct nla_policy taprio_tc_policy[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX] = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32,
- TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE),
+ TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1),
[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX_SDU] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_FP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32,
TC_FP_EXPRESS,
@@ -1698,19 +1698,15 @@ static int taprio_parse_tc_entry(struct Qdisc *sch,
if (err < 0)
return err;
- if (!tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX]) {
+ if (NL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK(extack, opt, tb, TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX)) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "TC entry index missing");
return -EINVAL;
}
tc = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX]);
- if (tc >= TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE) {
- NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "TC entry index out of range");
- return -ERANGE;
- }
-
if (*seen_tcs & BIT(tc)) {
- NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Duplicate TC entry");
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX],
+ "Duplicate tc entry");
return -EINVAL;
}
> ---
> net/sched/sch_mqprio.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c b/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
> index 51d4013b6121..f3e5ef9a9592 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int mqprio_parse_opt(struct net_device *dev, struct tc_mqprio_qopt *qopt,
> static const struct
> nla_policy mqprio_tc_entry_policy[TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
> [TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX] = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32,
> - TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE),
> + TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1),
> [TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_FP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32,
> TC_FP_EXPRESS,
> TC_FP_PREEMPTIBLE),
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 01:55:21PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> + Ferenc and Vladimir
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Maher Azzouzi wrote:
> > From: MaherAzzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
>
> nit: space between your names please
>
> >
> > TCA_MQPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX is validated using
> > NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32, TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE), which allows the value
> > TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE (16). This leads to a 4-byte out-of-bounds stack write in
> > the fp[] array, which only has room for 16 elements (0–15).
> >
> > Fix this by changing the policy to allow only up to TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1.
> >
> > Fixes: f62af20bed2d ("net/sched: mqprio: allow per-TC user input of FP adminStatus")
> > Reported-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think there is any need to include a Reported-by tag if
> you are also the patch author.
+1
>
> > Signed-off-by: Maher Azzouzi <maherazz04@gmail.com>
>
> I agree with your analysis and that this is a good fix.
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Thanks for the patch.
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 01:55:21PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> It seems that taprio has a similar problem, but that it is
> not a bug due to an additional check. I wonder if something
> like this for net-next is appropriate to align it's implementation
> wit that of maprio.
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> index 2b14c81a87e5..e759e43ad27e 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> @@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy entry_policy[TCA_TAPRIO_SCHED_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
>
> static const struct nla_policy taprio_tc_policy[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX + 1] = {
> [TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX] = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32,
> - TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE),
> + TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE - 1),
> [TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_MAX_SDU] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_FP] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32,
> TC_FP_EXPRESS,
> @@ -1698,19 +1698,15 @@ static int taprio_parse_tc_entry(struct Qdisc *sch,
> if (err < 0)
> return err;
>
> - if (!tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX]) {
> + if (NL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK(extack, opt, tb, TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX)) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "TC entry index missing");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> tc = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX]);
> - if (tc >= TC_QOPT_MAX_QUEUE) {
> - NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "TC entry index out of range");
> - return -ERANGE;
> - }
> -
> if (*seen_tcs & BIT(tc)) {
> - NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Duplicate TC entry");
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[TCA_TAPRIO_TC_ENTRY_INDEX],
> + "Duplicate tc entry");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
Yes, this is net-next material, and you can submit it independently of
the taprio change (i.e. right away).
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.