Re: [net-next,v9,03/15] quic: provide common utilities and data structures

Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.kernel-tls-handshake,dev.linux.lists.quic,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.netdev
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 2/5/26 12:54 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> 
> For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
> ---
> quic: provide common utilities and data structures
> 
> This patch provides foundational data structures and utilities for
> the QUIC stack, including hash tables for socket lookup, connection
> ID management, and helpers for encoding/decoding transport parameters.
> 
>> diff --git a/net/quic/common.c b/net/quic/common.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..94321f3f213d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/net/quic/common.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +/* Reads a QUIC transport parameter value. */
>> +u8 quic_get_param(u64 *pdest, u8 **pp, u32 *plen)
>> +{
>> +	u64 valuelen;
>> +
>> +	if (!quic_get_var(pp, plen, &valuelen))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (*plen < valuelen)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!quic_get_var(pp, plen, pdest))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	return (u8)valuelen;
>> +}
> 
> Does quic_get_param() need to verify that quic_get_var() consumed exactly
> valuelen bytes?
> 
> The function reads valuelen at the first quic_get_var() call, then decodes
> the value with the second quic_get_var(). However, quic_get_var() determines
> how many bytes to consume based on the varint prefix in the data, not from
> valuelen.
> 
> If a malformed packet has valuelen=2 but the varint encoding requires 4 bytes,
> quic_get_var() will consume 4 bytes while the function returns valuelen=2.
> This could desynchronize parsing of subsequent parameters since the caller
> expects the buffer to have advanced by valuelen bytes based on the return
> value.

Hard to tell without any caller for this function. Possibly you could
drop it? IDK if enforcing such check would be correct/safe from an
interoperability PoV.

>> diff --git a/net/quic/common.h b/net/quic/common.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..bfec0aaf2907
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/net/quic/common.h
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +#define QUIC_CONN_ID_MAX_LEN	20
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +struct quic_conn_id {
>> +	u8 data[QUIC_CONN_ID_MAX_LEN];
>> +	u8 len;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static inline void quic_conn_id_update(struct quic_conn_id *conn_id, u8 *data, u32 len)
>> +{
>> +	memcpy(conn_id->data, data, len);
>> +	conn_id->len = (u8)len;
>> +}
> 
> Should quic_conn_id_update() validate that len does not exceed
> QUIC_CONN_ID_MAX_LEN before the memcpy?
> 
> The destination buffer conn_id->data is a 20-byte array, but the len
> parameter is u32 with no bounds check. If a caller passes len > 20, the
> memcpy would overflow the buffer.

It looks like the check responsibility is on the callers. I guess it
would make things more robust and simpler move the check here.

/P
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.