Re: sys/net/pf_ioctl.c: out of bounds read in pf_rule_copyin

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 04:02:48PM +0200, Johann H??pfner wrote:
> >     I'm not sure how diff below helps. My understanding of the crash
> >     is that kasan fuzzer tries to load memory which is shorter than
> >     sizeof (struct pfioc_rule), the pfioc_rule size on amd64 is 3424.
>
> looking at the backtrace from the other kasan implementation running in
> syzbot, the pfioc_rule allocation is at arg index 2 of pioctl valued
> from = 0xffff8000012f0000 and invalid access occurs for address
> from + sizeof(struct pfioc_rule) = 0xffff8000012f0d60. Thus the invalid
> access is the first byte after the end of the allocation.
>
> | panic: Caught invalid memory access at ffff8000012f0d60 size 1 op 0
> | panic(ffffffff82a63def) at panic+0x270 sys/kern/subr_prf.c:198
> | __asan_load1_noabort(ffff8000012f0d60) at __asan_load1_noabort+0xed
> | strlcpy(ffff800000f4c650,ffff8000012f0928,40) at strlcpy+0x19b sys/lib/libkern/strlcpy.c:44
> | pf_rule_copyin(ffff8000012f0810,ffff800000f4c538) at pf_rule_copyin+0x52b sys/net/pf_ioctl.c:4047
> | pfioctl(24900,cd604404,ffff8000012f0000,2,ffff80003533ad28) at pfioctl+0x1b3d sys/net/pf_ioctl.c:-1
>
> > Also I've tried simple shell script on my pf test machine. the machine did
> > not crash.
>
> Yes, that is expected without address sanitizer as there will probably be
> a null-byte somewhere in the rest of the malloc bucket after the 3242
> bytes in from preventing a overflow beyond the mapped page.
>
> From the testing I did last saturday, the error occurs in the implicit
> strlen(src) done by strlcpy and my patch cuts that short. The backtrace
> above implicates exactly the corresponding line (strlcpy.c:44).

    thanks for clarification, after poking to strlcpy():

 37                 }
 38         }
 39
 40         /* Not enough room in dst, add NUL and traverse rest of src. */
 41         if (nleft == 0) {
 42                 if (dsize != 0)
 43                         *dst = '\0';            /* NUL-terminate dst */
 44                 while (*src++)
 45                         ;
 46         }
 47
 48         return(src - osrc - 1); /* count does not include NUL */

I see the problem now. I was not aware of the implicit (stlen()) line 44,
(yes, entirely my ignorance).

your diff makes sense, it is OK by me now.

thanks and
regards
sashan