full-disclosure - Re: Linux Kernel sctp_setsockopt() Integer Overflow

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]

Message-ID: <40B645B4.6060701@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
From: mjt at tls.msk.ru (Michael Tokarev)
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel sctp_setsockopt() Integer Overflow

Bringing up an old topic (discussed 15-May), because
it seems noone replied to my post, which contains er..
wrong claims.

Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Shaun Colley wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> if (NULL == (tmp = kmalloc(optlen + 1, GFP_KERNEL))) {
>>                         retval = -ENOMEM;
>>                         goto out_unlock;
>>                 }
>> ---
>>
>> Because kmalloc() takes the 'count' variable as an
>> unsigned number, negative numbers are interpreted as
>> large unsigned numbers.  However, if -1 is passed as
>> 'optlen' (represented as 0xffffffff (hex) in unsigned
>> variables, which is the largest value an unsigned
> 
> .....
> []
>> And thus, due to the integer overflow, 0 is passed to
>> kmalloc(), causing too little memory to be allocated
>> to hold 'optval'.

> But kmalloc(0) will return NULL, and the whole setsockopt
> will finish with errno set to ENOMEM.
> 
>  From 2.4 mm/slab.c:
> 
> void * kmalloc (size_t size, int flags)
> {
>         cache_sizes_t *csizep = cache_sizes;
> 
>         for (; csizep->cs_size; csizep++) {
>                 if (size > csizep->cs_size)
>                         continue;
>                 return __kmem_cache_alloc(flags & GFP_DMA ?
>                          csizep->cs_dmacachep : csizep->cs_cachep, flags);
>         }
>         return NULL;
> }
> 
> So, where's the bug?

I was wrong reading the above code, simple as that.
Sure, kmalloc(0) will NOT return NULL as I claimed.

                 if (size > csizep->cs_size)
                         continue;
Here, when size == 0 (and csizep->cs_size is always > 0),
the condition is always false, so the next instruction
will be executed, which is:

                 return __kmem_cache_alloc(flags & GFP_DMA ?
                          csizep->cs_dmacachep : csizep->cs_cachep, flags);

which will allocate either 32 or 64 bytes of memory (depending
on the arch) and return it to the caller.

So there IS a bug, exactly as described in the original advisory.

I wonder why noone replied... ;)

/mjt