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]
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:59:26 +0000
From:   Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
To:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org" <netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>,
        Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@....com>,
        Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/4] bus: fsl-mc: add fsl-mc userspace support

> > +static int fsl_mc_uapi_send_command(unsigned long arg,
> > +				    struct fsl_mc_io *mc_io)
> > +{
> > +	struct fsl_mc_command mc_cmd;
> > +	int error;
> > +
> > +	error = copy_from_user(&mc_cmd, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(mc_cmd));
> > +	if (error)
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > +	error = mc_send_command(mc_io, &mc_cmd);
> > +	if (error)
> > +		return error;
> > +
> > +	error = copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &mc_cmd, sizeof(mc_cmd));
> > +	if (error)
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> I know you said that "the firmware will properly verify the command"
> already, but given that I used to be a firmware developer a long time ago, I can
> almost guarantee that this will cause problems in the future.
> 
> Want to make a friendly bet about this?
> 
> What is the odds that your firmware api/interface has been properly fuzzed such
> that all possible combinations of bad commands will really not do horrible things
> to the hardware/system?
> 
> Are you all willing to bet the system intregrity on this?  If so, ok, it's your systems
> :)
> 
> Personally, I think you need to add a "known whitelist" and do some sort of
> sanity checking here.
> 

I can add a whitelist on the command ids that can be received from userspace but
leave the parameter parsing to the firmware to process and interpret depending on the
current system settings.

Would that be a viable option from your point of view?

Ioana C

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ