linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: rc: ir-lirc-codec: fix potential 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5riroj2l9iwsfksrf7xjglim.1291324135751@email.android.com>
Date:	Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:08:55 -0500
From:	Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>
To:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>, Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	David Härdeman <david@...deman.nu>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: rc: ir-lirc-codec: fix potential integer
 overflow

64 bit value / 4 = 62 bit value, right?


Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 07:51:26AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:06:35PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>> >  	count = n / sizeof(int);
>> > -	if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0)
>> > +	if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0 || n % sizeof(int) != 0)
>>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Wait, what?  We just checked this a couple lines before.
>
>Bah. I'd only looked at the diff, which didn't have enough context. I
>thought that looked familiar. Indeed, this part seems to be unnecessary.
>
>> The rest of the patch is right and a clever catch.  It would affect 
>> x86_64 systems and not i386.  This doesn't have security implications
>> does it?  You'd just catch the kmalloc() stack trace for insanely large
>> allocations.
>
>Even on x86_64, it looks to my (relatively untrained) eye like you'd
>actually be fine. n is a size_t (so, 64-bit on x86_64). count is an int
>(so 32-bit on x86_64). We initialize count to some 64-bit value / 4, so
>at most, 16 bits, which always fits just fine in the 32-bit int, no?
>
>-- 
>Jarod Wilson
>jarod@...hat.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html