syzkaller wireguard key situation [was: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel]

Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at
Mon Feb 17 16:19:09 CET 2020

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at> wrote:
> Observation:
> It seems to be starting to synthesize packets sent to the wireguard
> socket. These aren't the proper handshake packets generated internally
> by that triangle commit, but rather ones that syzkaller creates
> itself. That's why we have coverage on wg_receive, which otherwise
> wouldn't be called from a userspace process, since syzbot is sending
> its own packets to that function.
> However, the packets it generates aren't getting very far, failing all
> of the tests in validate_header_len. None of those checks are at all
> cryptographic, which means it should be able to hit those eventually.
> Anything we should be doing to help it out? After it gets past that
> check, it'll wind up in the handshake queue or the data queue, and
> then (in theory) it should be rejected on a cryptographic basis. But
> maybe syzbot will figure out how to crash it instead :-P.

Looking into this.

Found the program that gives wg_receive coverage:

r0 = openat$tun(0xffffffffffffff9c,
&(0x7f0000000080)='/dev/net/tun\x00', 0x88002, 0x0)
ioctl$TUNSETIFF(r0, 0x400454ca, &(0x7f00000000c0)={'syzkaller1\x00',
r1 = socket$netlink(0x10, 0x3, 0x0)
ioctl$sock_inet_SIOCSIFADDR(r1, 0x8914,
&(0x7f0000000140)={'syzkaller1\x00', {0x7, 0x0, @empty}})
write$tun(r0, &(0x7f00000002c0)={@void, @val, @ipv4=@udp={{0x5, 0x4,
0x0, 0x0, 0x1c, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x11, 0x0, @remote, @broadcast}, {0x0,
0x4e21, 0x8}}}, 0x26)

Checked that doing SIOCSIFADDR is also required, otherwise the packet
does not reach wg_receive.

More information about the WireGuard mailing list