[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLY+oOcH5ZxvncNxEg2kY_E-HPKpeFB6T+2m6eWZfjSuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:48:17 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: rusty@...tcorp.com.au, pjones@...hat.com, jwboyer@...hat.com,
mjg@...hat.com, dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] pefile: Parse a PE binary to find a key and a
signature contained therein
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:31 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> Which means this loop will walk past the end of the memory (loop is
>> bounded by n_sections, so secs[loop] can go past datalen). While
>> data_addr and raw_data_size will stay bounded, the read of sec->name
>> can be out of bounds.
>
> Assuming n_sections is checked, sec->name can't be out of bounds because it's
> a char array, not a pointer.
>
>> (Also, do you want a "break" in there after the first .keylist is found, or
>> is this intentionally "use last key list"?)
>
> Actually, no I don't. The loop also checks the limits on each section - which
> I need to do since I have to individually digest the sections later.
>
> Attached is a patch I'm applying to pefile_parse_binary() to be more rigorous
> about the checking of values in the PE binary.
Cool; looks good to me. When this gets into linux-next, we should
probably spend more time staring at it. :)
Thanks for the fixes!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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