netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFC: Fix possible memory corruption when handling SHDLC I-Frame commands

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:38:14 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Security Officers <security@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Deus <kdeus@...gle.com>,
        Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Allen Pais <allen.pais@...cle.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFC: Fix possible memory corruption when handling
 SHDLC I-Frame commands

The separate fix for the size of pipes[] array is posted here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/14/1034
Thanks!

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks.  This is great.  I'm so glad these are finally getting fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we need to fix nfc_hci_msg_rx_work() and nfc_hci_recv_from_llc() as
>>>>>>> well?  In nfc_hci_recv_from_llc() we allow pipe to be NFC_HCI_FRAGMENT
>>>>>>> (0x7f) so that's one element beyond the end of the array and the
>>>>>>> NFC_HCI_HCP_RESPONSE isn't checked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also nci_hci_msg_rx_work() and nci_hci_data_received_cb() use
>>>>>>> NCI_HCP_MSG_GET_PIPE() so those could be off by one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point. From hci.h:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>  * According to specification 102 622 chapter 4.4 Pipes,
>>>>>>  * the pipe identifier is 7 bits long.
>>>>>>  */
>>>>>> #define NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES 127
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct nfc_hci_dev {
>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>   struct nfc_hci_pipe pipes[NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES];
>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the correct fix would be to change it to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   struct nfc_hci_pipe pipes[NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES + 1];
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>
> Actually, after looking more closely, NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES is always used
> as the number of supported pipes and not as the max pipe ID, so the
> right fix would be:
>
> -#define NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES 127
> +#define NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES 128
>
> I would prefer to rename it into NFC_HCI_PIPE_COUNT but don't want to
> introduce unnecessary churn for one-line change, so will keep the
> name. Will post a separate fix for this shortly.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear, this would fix the problem Dan described in his
>>>>> reply and it should be implemented in a separate patch. The original
>>>>> fix is still valid.
>>>>
>>>> I think you could merge the fixes into a single patch.
>>>
>>> Couple reasons I would prefer to keep them separate:
>>> - I feel that descriptions for these two issues should be different
>>> and it's easier if we don't mix them up
>>> - This one is already merged into Android kernels, so would be easier
>>> to introduce the second fix separately
>>> - I would like to give credit to people who noticed the problem (in
>>> this case those are different people)
>>>
>>> However if more people think we should fix both issues in the same
>>> patch I'll happily do that.
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> If it's already landed separately somewhere else, then yeah, 2 patches
>> sounds good. No objection either way from me!
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>> --
>> Kees Cook
>> Pixel Security