linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: core-smbus: fix a potential uninitialization bug

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: <CAAa=b7dgSUitBM+swrcb95Uk=Zdt0Li_dwcuskzux6m7QvKFxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 May 2018 00:28:14 -0500
From:   Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc:     Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        "open list:I2C SUBSYSTEM" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: core-smbus: fix a potential uninitialization bug

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
> On 2018-05-04 06:08, Wenwen Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-03 00:36, Wenwen Wang wrote:
>>>> In i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(), there are two buffers: msgbuf0 and msgbuf1,
>>>> which are used to save a series of messages, as mentioned in the comment.
>>>> According to the value of the variable "size", msgbuf0 is initialized to
>>>> various values. In contrast, msgbuf1 is left uninitialized until the
>>>> function i2c_transfer() is invoked. However, mgsbuf1 is not always
>>>> initialized on all possible execution paths (implementation) of
>>>> i2c_transfer(). Thus, it is possible that mgsbuf1 may still not be
>>>
>>> double negation here
>>>
>>>> uninitialized even after the invocation of the function i2c_transfer(). In
>>>> the following execution, the uninitialized msgbuf1 will be used, such as
>>>> for security checks. Since uninitialized values can be random and
>>>> arbitrary, this will cause undefined behaviors or even check bypass. For
>>>> example, it is expected that if the value of "size" is
>>>> I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_PROC_CALL, the value of data->block[0] should not be larger
>>>> than I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX. But, at the end of i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(), the
>>>> value read from msgbuf1 is assigned to data->block[0], which can
>>>> potentially lead to invalid block write size, as demonstrated in the error
>>>> message.
>>>>
>>>> This patch simply initializes the buffer msgbuf1 with 0 to avoid undefined
>>>> behaviors or security issues.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang <wang6495@....edu>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>> index b5aec33..0fcca75 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16 addr,
>>>>        * somewhat simpler.
>>>>        */
>>>>       unsigned char msgbuf0[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+3];
>>>> -     unsigned char msgbuf1[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+2];
>>>> +     unsigned char msgbuf1[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+2] = {0};
>>>
>>> I think this will result in the whole of msgbuf1 being filled with zeroes.
>>> It might be cheaper to do this with code proper rather than with an
>>> initializer?
>>
>> Thanks for your comment, Peter!  How about using a memset() only when
>> i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated() emulates reading commands, since msgbuf1 is
>> used only in that case?
>
> I was thinking that an assignment of
>
>         msgbuf1[0] = 0;
>
> would be enough in the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA and I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_PROC_CALL
> cases before the i2c_transfer call. However, this will only kick in if
> the call to kzalloc fails (and it most likely will not) in the call to the
> i2c_smbus_try_get_dmabuf helper. So, this thing that you are trying to fix
> seems like a non-issue to me.
>
> However, while looking I think the bigger problem with that function is that
> it considers all non-negative return values from i2c_transfer as good<tm>.
> IMHO, it should barf on any return values <> num. Or at the very least
> describe why a partial result is considered OK...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>       int num = read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ ? 2 : 1;
>>>>       int i;
>>>>       u8 partial_pec = 0;
>>>>
>>>
>

Yes, it is a big issue if the return value from i2c_transfer() is not
equal to num. I can add a check like this:

if (status != num)
  return -EINVAL;

Also, I wonder why msgbuf1 is necessary if it is replaced by kzalloc
in i2c_smbus_try_get_dmabuf()?

Thanks,
Wenwen