linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2 v2] staging: lustre: integer overflow in obd_ioctl_is

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]

Message-ID: <535E3CF7.9030609@bfs.de>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:35:19 +0200
From:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	"John L. Hammond" <john.hammond@...el.com>,
	Dmitry Eremin <dmitry.eremin@...el.com>,
	Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>,
	Dulshani Gunawardhana <dulshani.gunawardhana89@...il.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2 v2] staging: lustre: integer overflow in obd_ioctl_is_invalid()



Am 28.04.2014 12:58, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> The obd_ioctl_getdata() function caps "data->ioc_len" at
> OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER and then calls this obd_ioctl_is_invalid() to check
> that the other values inside data are valid.
> 
> There are several lengths inside data but when they are added together
> they must not be larger than "data->ioc_len".  The checks against
> "(data->ioc_inllen1 > (1<<30))" are supposed to ensure that the addition
> does not have an integer overflow.  But "(1<<30) * 4" actually can
> overflow 32 bits, so the checks are insufficient.
> 
> I have changed it to "> OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER" instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> ---
> v2: Updated the error messages as Walter Harms pointed out.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_lib.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_lib.h
> index bdc9812..3c26bbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_lib.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_lib.h
> @@ -179,24 +179,25 @@ static inline int obd_ioctl_packlen(struct obd_ioctl_data *data)
>  
>  static inline int obd_ioctl_is_invalid(struct obd_ioctl_data *data)
>  {
> -	if (data->ioc_len > (1<<30)) {
> -		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_len larger than 1<<30\n");
> +	if (data->ioc_len > OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER) {
> +		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_len larger than %d\n",
> +		       OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER);
>  		return 1;
>  	}
> -	if (data->ioc_inllen1 > (1<<30)) {
> -		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen1 larger than 1<<30\n");
> +	if (data->ioc_inllen1 > OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER) {
> +		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen1 larger than ioc_len\n");
>  		return 1;
>  	}

The error mention ioc_len the compare is OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER ?
Is that intentional ?

re,
 wh

> -	if (data->ioc_inllen2 > (1<<30)) {
> -		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen2 larger than 1<<30\n");
> +	if (data->ioc_inllen2 > OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER) {
> +		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen2 larger than ioc_len\n");
>  		return 1;
>  	}
> -	if (data->ioc_inllen3 > (1<<30)) {
> -		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen3 larger than 1<<30\n");
> +	if (data->ioc_inllen3 > OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER) {
> +		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen3 larger than ioc_len\n");
>  		return 1;
>  	}
> -	if (data->ioc_inllen4 > (1<<30)) {
> -		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen4 larger than 1<<30\n");
> +	if (data->ioc_inllen4 > OBD_MAX_IOCTL_BUFFER) {
> +		CERROR("OBD ioctl: ioc_inllen4 larger than ioc_len\n");
>  		return 1;
>  	}
>  	if (data->ioc_inlbuf1 && !data->ioc_inllen1) {
> 
--
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/