Re: [PATCH net v1] vsock: validate buffer min/max size in setsockopt
weirongguang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026/8/24 20:16, David Laight wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:12:57 +0800 > Rongguang Wei <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Rongguang Wei <[email protected]> >> >> SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN_SIZE and SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MAX_SIZE >> do not cross-validate against each other, allowing userspace to >> set buffer_min_size > buffer_max_size. >> When min > max, buffer_size is silently clamped to an incorrect >> value. For example, setting min=512KB then max=128 results in >> buffer_size=128 despite the user requesting much larger buffers >> via SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE. >> >> Reproduced with a test program: >> setsockopt(fd, AF_VSOCK, SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN_SIZE, >> 512 * 1024, sizeof(int)); >> setsockopt(fd, AF_VSOCK, SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MAX_SIZE, >> 128, sizeof(int)); >> // User asked for 1MB but got 128 bytes silently >> setsockopt(fd, AF_VSOCK, SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE, >> 1024 * 1024, sizeof(int)); >> >> After that use getsockopt to get the buffer_size = 128 and >> buffer_min_size = 524288, buffer_max_size = 128. >> The buffer_min_size > buffer_max_size and the kernel accepted >> contradictory values without error. >> >> Add value check to fix this issue. Return -EINVAL to userspace >> when setting MAX_SIZE to a value smaller than the current MIN_SIZE >> or setting MIN_SIZE to a value larger than the current MAX_SIZE. > > That is going to break userspace that sets the minimum before the maximum > when the new minimum is larger than the old maximum. > > David > Hi, David. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Here is an alternative approach: instead of returning -EINVAL, automatically adjust the other value to preserve buffer_min_size <= buffer_max_size. The trade-off is that setting one parameter may implicitly adjust the other, but this is preferable to breaking existing applications. Does this approach look reasonable? --- diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c index a33b2a2d381d..bd4646115af5 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c @@ -2050,12 +2050,18 @@ static int vsock_connectible_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, case SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MAX_SIZE: COPY_IN(val); + /* If the new max is less than current min, shrink min to match. */ + if (val < vsk->buffer_min_size) + vsk->buffer_min_size = val; vsk->buffer_max_size = val; vsock_update_buffer_size(vsk, transport, vsk->buffer_size); break; case SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN_SIZE: COPY_IN(val); + /* If the new min is greater than current max, expand max to match. */ + if (val > vsk->buffer_max_size) + vsk->buffer_max_size = val; vsk->buffer_min_size = val; vsock_update_buffer_size(vsk, transport, vsk->buffer_size); break; >> >> Fixes: b9f2b0ffde0c ("vsock: handle buffer_size sockopts in the core") >> Signed-off-by: Rongguang Wei <[email protected]> >> --- >> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> index a33b2a2d381d..5faa30ee8745 100644 >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> @@ -2050,12 +2050,20 @@ static int vsock_connectible_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, >> >> case SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MAX_SIZE: >> COPY_IN(val); >> + if (val < vsk->buffer_min_size) { >> + err = -EINVAL; >> + goto exit; >> + } >> vsk->buffer_max_size = val; >> vsock_update_buffer_size(vsk, transport, vsk->buffer_size); >> break; >> >> case SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN_SIZE: >> COPY_IN(val); >> + if (val > vsk->buffer_max_size) { >> + err = -EINVAL; >> + goto exit; >> + } >> vsk->buffer_min_size = val; >> vsock_update_buffer_size(vsk, transport, vsk->buffer_size); >> break;