linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 01/92] KVM: s390: Test for bad access register and size at the start of S390_MEM

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: <20191016214800.188301016@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:49:34 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 01/92] KVM: s390: Test for bad access register and size at the start of S390_MEM_OP

From: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>

commit a13b03bbb4575b350b46090af4dfd30e735aaed1 upstream.

If the KVM_S390_MEM_OP ioctl is called with an access register >= 16,
then there is certainly a bug in the calling userspace application.
We check for wrong access registers, but only if the vCPU was already
in the access register mode before (i.e. the SIE block has recorded
it). The check is also buried somewhere deep in the calling chain (in
the function ar_translation()), so this is somewhat hard to find.

It's better to always report an error to the userspace in case this
field is set wrong, and it's safer in the KVM code if we block wrong
values here early instead of relying on a check somewhere deep down
the calling chain, so let's add another check to kvm_s390_guest_mem_op()
directly.

We also should check that the "size" is non-zero here (thanks to Janosch
Frank for the hint!). If we do not check the size, we could call vmalloc()
with this 0 value, and this will cause a kernel warning.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190829122517.31042-1-thuth@redhat.com
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -3033,7 +3033,7 @@ static long kvm_s390_guest_mem_op(struct
 	const u64 supported_flags = KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_INJECT_EXCEPTION
 				    | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY;

-	if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags)
+	if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS || !mop->size)
 		return -EINVAL;

 	if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)