linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "UBIFS: Fix potential integer overflow in allocation"

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: <CAGXu5jJabYkC06ZGa1X2HweY8idyDR8a2y805btY5jKMHKbSuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:27:00 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     Linux mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Silvio Cesare <silvio.cesare@...il.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "UBIFS: Fix potential integer overflow in allocation"

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. Juli 2018, 18:00:05 CEST schrieb Kees Cook:
>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>> > This reverts commit 353748a359f1821ee934afc579cf04572406b420.
>> > It bypassed the linux-mtd review process and fixes the issue not as it
>> > should.
>>
>> Ah, sorry, I thought you were CCed on the original report.
>
> No big deal. I was just "surprised".

Yeah, totally my mistake. There were other overflow patches that went
out pubically and I thought this one had too.

>> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> > Cc: Silvio Cesare <silvio.cesare@...il.com>
>> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> > Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>> > ---
>> >  fs/ubifs/journal.c | 5 ++---
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/journal.c b/fs/ubifs/journal.c
>> > index 07b4956e0425..da8afdfccaa6 100644
>> > --- a/fs/ubifs/journal.c
>> > +++ b/fs/ubifs/journal.c
>> > @@ -1282,11 +1282,10 @@ static int truncate_data_node(const struct ubifs_info *c, const struct inode *in
>> >                               int *new_len)
>> >  {
>> >         void *buf;
>> > -       int err, compr_type;
>> > -       u32 dlen, out_len, old_dlen;
>> > +       int err, dlen, compr_type, out_len, old_dlen;
>>
>> What's wrong with making these unsigned?
>
> Well, what is the benefit?
> In ubifs a data node carries at most 4k of bytes.
> WORST_COMPR_FACTOR is 2.
> So the computed lengths are always in a range where a natural int does work just fine.

Just a robustness preference: it keeps it from going negative. But I
don't feel strongly. :)

>> >         out_len = le32_to_cpu(dn->size);
>> > -       buf = kmalloc_array(out_len, WORST_COMPR_FACTOR, GFP_NOFS);
>> > +       buf = kmalloc(out_len * WORST_COMPR_FACTOR, GFP_NOFS);
>> >         if (!buf)
>> >                 return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> Please leave the kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array() change, as that has
>> happened treewide already. We don't want to have any multiplications
>> in the size argument for the allocators (i.e. they should use 2-factor
>> arg version like here, or use array_size() for things like vmalloc()).
>
> Let's queue another patch for the next merge window which converts
> kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array().

I'd prefer to leave it as-is for 4.18 because it would be the only
unconverted kmalloc()-with-multiplication in the entire tree. We did
treewide conversions and a revert would be undoing that here. (The
scripts that check for this case would run "clean" for 4.18.)

So, this gets back to the question of the int vs u32: if you just
didn't revert this patch, then the kmalloc_array() would stand too.
Easy! :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security