[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1612560.vxfrDdQTFq@avalon>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 21:18:37 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Robb Glasser <rglasser@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [media] uvcvideo: Prevent heap overflow in uvc driver
Hi Guenter,
On Wednesday 28 Jun 2017 20:59:17 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 Jun 2017 07:36:43 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:48:04PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> From: Robb Glasser <rglasser@...gle.com>
> >>
> >> The size of uvc_control_mapping is user controlled leading to a
> >> potential heap overflow in the uvc driver. This adds a check to verify
> >> the user provided size fits within the bounds of the defined buffer
> >> size.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Robb Glasser <rglasser@...gle.com>
> >> [groeck: cherry picked from
> >>
> >> https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-3.10
> >> commit b7b99e55bc7770187913ed092990852ea52d7892;
> >> updated subject]
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >> ---
> >> Fixes CVE-2017-0627.
> >
> > Please do not apply this patch. It is buggy.
>
> I apologize for not noticing the initial patch, even if it looks like it was
> all for the best. Will you send a new version ?
>
> >> drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c | 3 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> >> b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c index c2ee6e39fd0c..252ab991396f
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> >> @@ -1992,6 +1992,9 @@ int uvc_ctrl_add_mapping(struct uvc_video_chain
> >> *chain,
> >> if (!found)
> >> return -ENOENT;
> >>
> >> + if (ctrl->info.size < mapping->size)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
By the way, I believe the right fix should be
if (mapping->offset + mapping->size > ctrl->info.size * 8)
return -EINVAL;
Both mapping->offset and mapping->size are 8-bit integers, so there's no risk
of overflow in the addition. If we want to safeguard against a possible future
bug if the type of the fields change, we could add
if (mapping->offset + mapping->size < mapping->offset)
return -EINVAL;
> >> if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&chain->ctrl_mutex))
> >> return -ERESTARTSYS;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists