linux-kernel - Re: [uwb-i1480] question about value overwrite

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: <20170519031358.Horde.QvoOUnE4YlCUvfnIFTEySYu@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2017 03:13:58 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [uwb-i1480] question about value overwrite

Hi Greg,

Quoting Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:

> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> While looking into Coverity ID 1226913 I ran into the following piece of
>> code at drivers/uwb/i1480/dfu/phy.c:99:
>>
>>  99static
>> 100int i1480_mpi_read(struct i1480 *i1480, u8 *data, u16 srcaddr,  
>> size_t size)
>> 101{
>> 102        int result;
>> 103        struct i1480_cmd_mpi_read *cmd = i1480->cmd_buf;
>> 104        struct i1480_evt_mpi_read *reply = i1480->evt_buf;
>> 105        unsigned cnt;
>> 106
>> 107        memset(i1480->cmd_buf, 0x69, 512);
>> 108        memset(i1480->evt_buf, 0x69, 512);
>> 109
>> 110        BUG_ON(size > (i1480->buf_size - sizeof(*reply)) / 3);
>> 111        result = -ENOMEM;
>> 112        cmd->rccb.bCommandType = i1480_CET_VS1;
>> 113        cmd->rccb.wCommand = cpu_to_le16(i1480_CMD_MPI_READ);
>> 114        cmd->size = cpu_to_le16(3*size);
>> 115        for (cnt = 0; cnt < size; cnt++) {
>> 116                cmd->data[cnt].page = (srcaddr + cnt) >> 8;
>> 117                cmd->data[cnt].offset = (srcaddr + cnt) & 0xff;
>> 118        }
>> 119        reply->rceb.bEventType = i1480_CET_VS1;
>> 120        reply->rceb.wEvent = i1480_CMD_MPI_READ;
>> 121        result = i1480_cmd(i1480, "MPI-READ", sizeof(*cmd) + 2*size,
>> 122                        sizeof(*reply) + 3*size);
>> 123        if (result < 0)
>> 124                goto out;
>> 125        if (reply->bResultCode != UWB_RC_RES_SUCCESS) {
>> 126                dev_err(i1480->dev, "MPI-READ: command execution failed:
>> %d\n",
>> 127                        reply->bResultCode);
>> 128                result = -EIO;
>> 129        }
>> 130        for (cnt = 0; cnt < size; cnt++) {
>> 131                if (reply->data[cnt].page != (srcaddr + cnt) >> 8)
>> 132                        dev_err(i1480->dev, "MPI-READ: page inconsistency
>> at "
>> 133                                "index %u: expected 0x%02x, got
>> 0x%02x\n", cnt,
>> 134                                (srcaddr + cnt) >> 8,
>> reply->data[cnt].page);
>> 135                if (reply->data[cnt].offset != ((srcaddr + cnt)  
>> & 0x00ff))
>> 136                        dev_err(i1480->dev, "MPI-READ: offset
>> inconsistency at "
>> 137                                "index %u: expected 0x%02x, got
>> 0x%02x\n", cnt,
>> 138                                (srcaddr + cnt) & 0x00ff,
>> 139                                reply->data[cnt].offset);
>> 140                data[cnt] = reply->data[cnt].value;
>> 141        }
>> 142        result = 0;
>> 143out:
>> 144        return result;
>> 145}
>>
>> The issue is that the value store in variable _result_ at line 128 is
>> overwritten by the one stored at line 142, before it can be used.
>>
>> My question is if the original intention was to return this value
>> inmediately after the assignment at line 128, something like in the
>> following patch:
>>
>> index 3b1a87d..1ac8526 100644
>> --- a/drivers/uwb/i1480/dfu/phy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/uwb/i1480/dfu/phy.c
>> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ int i1480_mpi_read(struct i1480 *i1480, u8 *data, u16
>> srcaddr, size_t size)
>>                 dev_err(i1480->dev, "MPI-READ: command execution failed:
>> %d\n",
>>                         reply->bResultCode);
>>                 result = -EIO;
>> +               goto out;
>>         }
>>         for (cnt = 0; cnt < size; cnt++) {
>>                 if (reply->data[cnt].page != (srcaddr + cnt) >> 8)
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> I'd really appreciate any comment on this.
>
> I think you are correct, I'll take a patch to fix this up if you want to
> write one :)
>

Absolutely, I'll send it shortly.

Thanks!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva