linux-kernel - Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] Integer underflow in pdu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <512b9cc7-3b7a-3ee4-5759-0a27144825a8@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:05:31 +0200
From:   Tomas Bortoli <tomasbortoli@...il.com>
To:     jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>, ericvh@...il.com,
        rminnich@...dia.gov, lucho@...kov.net,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] Integer underflow in pdu_read()

On 07/11/2018 04:04 AM, jiangyiwen wrote:
> On 2018/7/10 3:26, Tomas Bortoli wrote:
>> The pdu_read() function suffers from an integer underflow.
>> When pdu->offset is greater than pdu->size, the length calculation will have
>> a wrong result, resulting in an out-of-bound read.
>> This patch modifies also pdu_write() in the same way to prevent the same
>> issue from happening there and for consistency.
> I guess this case may happened only when server send wrong size to
> the client and then cause size < offset, or else I think this case
> will not happen. Is it right? Or other cases?
>
> In addition, the email should also send to andrew morton, because
> 9p maintainer already don't maintain the project, andrew can help
> merge the patch.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Bortoli <tomasbortoli@...il.com>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+65c6b72f284a39d416b4@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>> ---
>>  net/9p/protocol.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/9p/protocol.c b/net/9p/protocol.c
>> index 931ea00c4fed..f1e2425f920b 100644
>> --- a/net/9p/protocol.c
>> +++ b/net/9p/protocol.c
>> @@ -55,16 +55,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(p9stat_free);
>>  
>>  size_t pdu_read(struct p9_fcall *pdu, void *data, size_t size)
>>  {
>> -	size_t len = min(pdu->size - pdu->offset, size);
>> -	memcpy(data, &pdu->sdata[pdu->offset], len);
>> +	size_t len = pdu->offset > pdu->size ? 0 :
>> +	 min(pdu->size - pdu->offset, size);
> I suggest this add two *Tab* lens.
>
>> +	if (len != 0)
>> +		memcpy(data, &pdu->sdata[pdu->offset], len);
>>  	pdu->offset += len;
>>  	return size - len;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static size_t pdu_write(struct p9_fcall *pdu, const void *data, size_t size)
>>  {
>> -	size_t len = min(pdu->capacity - pdu->size, size);
>> -	memcpy(&pdu->sdata[pdu->size], data, len);
>> +	size_t len = pdu->size > pdu->capacity ? 0 :
>> +	 min(pdu->capacity - pdu->size, size);
> The same as above.
>
>> +	if (len != 0)
>> +		memcpy(&pdu->sdata[pdu->size], data, len);
>>  	pdu->size += len;
>>  	return size - len;
>>  }
>>
>

This patch is not necessary anymore, the one I just sent fixes the
length validation issue.