linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: bounds check execbuffer relocation count

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:07:46 +0000
From:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>, marcheu@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: bounds check execbuffer relocation count

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
> relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows.
> 
> CVE-2013-0913
> 
> v3: collapse test, improve comment
> v2: move check into validate_exec_list
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reported-by: Pinkie Pie
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org

Looks good to me. The only bikeshed that remains is whether we should
just collapse the two variables into one, but the current 'max - count'
is more idiomatic and so preferrable.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
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/