linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] trace-cmd: prevent print_graph

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: <20100615131002.GD5342@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:10:03 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace-cmd: prevent print_graph_duration buffer overflow

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:04:58AM -0400, Chase Douglas wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 14:49 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:16:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 17:40 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:01:34 EDT, Chase Douglas said:
> > > > > On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 16:52 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:48 EDT, Chase Douglas said:
> > > > > > > Passing n > sizeof(string) to snprintf can cause a glibc buffer overflow
> > > > > > > condition. We know the exact size of nsecs_str, so use it instead of
> > > > > > > math that may overflow.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	/* Print nsecs (we don't want to exceed 7 numbers) */
> > > > > > >  	if ((s->len - len) < 7) {
> > > > > > > -		snprintf(nsecs_str, 8 - (s->len - len), "%03lu", nsecs_rem);
> > > > > > > +		snprintf(nsecs_str, sizeof(nsecs_str), "%03lu", nsecs_rem);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We only get into this code after we've checked that the length is under 7
> > > > > > characters.  How much overflow can happen as long as the sizeof(nsecs_str) is a
> > > > > > sane size (like at least 8 chars)?  Probably a better bet would be doing the
> > > > > > right thing and 'BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(nsecs_str) < 8);'?
> > > > > 
> > > > > nsecs_str is a local variable defined just above this block of code as:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	char nsecs_str[5];
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was hitting cases where s->len == 64 and len == 63, leading to the
> > > > > size argument of snprintf being 7 on a 5 byte string. I didn't delve too
> > > > > much into the reasoning for the if statement, but I think it's math is
> > > > > not actually related to the size of nsecs_rem but to some other string
> > > > > length.
> > > > 
> > > > This is starting to smell like that patch is just papering over a bug...
> > > > 
> > > > I saw that '8 -' and made the rash assumption that was the size of the array.
> > > > Is 5 in fact big enough and the  's->len - len' calculation is broken, or
> > > > should it be bigger?  As you noted, that length calculation is looking a tad
> > > > sketchy.  (And if we're stuck with '5' because it's a magic number for
> > > > somebody's formatting purposes, maybe it needs to be a #define?)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ouch, this is worse than that. this code was cut & pasted almost
> > > directly from the Linux kernel (kernel/trace/trace_function_graph.c).
> > > And it looks like any bug here is also a bug there. The difference is
> > > that if we trigger the bug there we crash the kernel :-p
> > 
> > 
> > I must be missing the purpose of this patch.
> > 
> > log10(nsecs_rem) can't exceed 3 characters as it is the rest of
> > a division per 1000.
> > 
> > The goal of this:
> > 
> > 	if (len < 7) {
> > 		snprintf(nsecs_str, 8 - len, "%03lu", nsecs_rem)
> > 
> > is to avoid having a duration that exceeds 7 characters, so formatted nsecs
> > be shrinked on need.
> > 
> > For example:
> > 
> > 	75000.567
> > 
> > would be shrinked to 75000.56, and that's the point.
> > 
> > if (len < 7) is not a security guard, it is a formatting convenience
> > to get a fixed column length.
> > 
> > The security guard is the mathematics that tells us log10(n % 1000) < 4.
> > In fact nsecs_str could be even of size 4 rather than 5.
> 
> I agree that there is no *real* security issue here because of the
> length of the string that snprintf would generate. However, glibc still
> barfs when you pass in a size parameter larger than the string. Without
> this patch, trace-cmd is unusable for me; glibc aborts as soon as the
> condition is hit. I found this as I was packaging trace-cmd for Ubuntu,
> so maybe glibc in other distributions is behaving differently?


Ah, I see what you mean. So the check is made on runtime, right?
But your patch breaks the nsec adaptive size reduction that keeps a fixed
column size.

What about:

	if (len < 7) {
-		snprintf(nsecs_str, 8 - len, "%03lu", nsecs_rem);
+		snprintf(nsecs_str, min(sizeof(nsecs_rem), 8 - len), "%03lu", nsecs_rem);

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/