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 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.