[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51FB915C.1050003@atmel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:00:44 +0100
From: Rupesh Gujare <rupesh.gujare@...el.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: ozwpan: Increase farewell report size.
On 02/08/13 11:27, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:45:01PM +0100, Rupesh Gujare wrote:
>> Farewell report size can be bigger than one byte, increase array
>> size to accomodate maximum 32 bytes of farewell report.
>>
> Gar... No. This is not right.
>
> 1) There is no check limiting the size to 32 and it could be up to
> 253 bytes.
>
> 2) Use defines instead of magic numbers.
>
> 3) The oz_farewell struct is supposed to be a variable length struct
> but the variable part is put in the middle. It doesn't make any
> sense to put the length of the variable size array after then end
> of the array because we can never find it again! Put the
> variable size array at the end. Make it a zero length array.
> u8 len;
> u8 report[0];
>
> 4) In oz_add_farewell() we do this:
>
> f = kmalloc(sizeof(struct oz_farewell) + len - 1, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> The "- 1" refers to sizeof(f->report) but because it was a magic
> number then it was missed when the sizeof(f->report) changed.
>
> 5) In [patch 6/6] we set the ->len member. But because it is at the
> end of a variable length array with no limit check the remote
> attacker can just rewrite it using the memcpy() on the next line.
>
>
Thanks Dan.
A patch follows to fix above issues.
--
Regards,
Rupesh Gujare
--
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