[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201911060920.71D7E76E@keescook>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:24:18 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot+fb77e97ebf0612ee6914@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Limit to INT_MAX in create_blob ioctl
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 05:47:55PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The hardened usercpy code is too paranoid ever since:
>
> commit 6a30afa8c1fbde5f10f9c584c2992aa3c7f7a8fe
> Author: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Date: Wed Nov 6 16:07:01 2019 +1100
>
> uaccess: disallow > INT_MAX copy sizes
>
> Code itself should have been fine as-is.
I had to go read the syzbot report to understand what was actually being
fixed here. Can you be a bit more verbose in this commit log? It sounds
like huge usercopy sizes were allowed by drm (though I guess they would
fail gracefully in some other way?) but after 6a30afa8c1fb, the copy
would yell about sizes where INT_MAX < size < ULONG_MAX - sizeof(...) ?
What was the prior failure mode that made the existing ULONG_MAX check
safe? Your patch looks fine, though:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reported-by: syzbot+fb77e97ebf0612ee6914@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 6a30afa8c1fb ("uaccess: disallow > INT_MAX copy sizes")
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
> --
> Kees/Andrew,
>
> Since this is -mm can I have a stable sha1 or something for
> referencing? Or do you want to include this in the -mm patch bomb for
> the merge window?
Traditionally these things live in akpm's tree when they are fixes for
patches in there. I have no idea how the Fixes tags work in that case,
though...
-Kees
> -Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> index 892ce636ef72..6ee04803c362 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ drm_property_create_blob(struct drm_device *dev, size_t length,
> struct drm_property_blob *blob;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!length || length > ULONG_MAX - sizeof(struct drm_property_blob))
> + if (!length || length > INT_MAX - sizeof(struct drm_property_blob))
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> blob = kvzalloc(sizeof(struct drm_property_blob)+length, GFP_KERNEL);
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists