[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120319234839.GA26931@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:48:39 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Michael Gehring <mg@...e.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty/vt: set_get_cmap() check user buffer
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:34:01AM +0100, Michael Gehring wrote:
> set_get_cmap() ignores the result of {get,put}_user(), causing ioctl(vt,
> {G,P}IO_CMAP, 0xdeadbeef) to silently fail.
Why not just check each return value, failing only if/when a specific
write fails?
>
> Another side effect of this: calling the PIO_CMAP ioctl with an invalid
> buffer will zero the default colormap and the palette for all vts (all
> colors set to black).
>
> Use access_ok() and return -EFAULT when appropriate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Gehring <mg@...e.org>
> ---
> drivers/tty/vt/vt.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> index e716839..176b2a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> @@ -3897,15 +3897,18 @@ static int set_get_cmap(unsigned char __user *arg, int set)
>
> WARN_CONSOLE_UNLOCKED();
>
> + if (!access_ok(set ? VERIFY_READ : VERIFY_WRITE, arg, 3 * 16))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
> if (set) {
> - get_user(default_red[i], arg++);
> - get_user(default_grn[i], arg++);
> - get_user(default_blu[i], arg++);
> + __get_user(default_red[i], arg++);
> + __get_user(default_grn[i], arg++);
> + __get_user(default_blu[i], arg++);
> } else {
> - put_user(default_red[i], arg++);
> - put_user(default_grn[i], arg++);
> - put_user(default_blu[i], arg++);
> + __put_user(default_red[i], arg++);
> + __put_user(default_grn[i], arg++);
> + __put_user(default_blu[i], arg++);
What's to keep this userspace buffer from becoming invalid after the
check? For some reason I thought we couldn't check beforehand like
this, but I can't recall why at this specific moment.
And ugh, why do we have a function that does two things, like this? The
only thing we are "saving" is a single for loop by doing things this
way, splitting it out into a set/get function, would make more sense in
the end.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists