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:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:24:42 +0000
From:   Omer Shalev <omerdeshalev@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media:usb:cpia2: Properly check framebuffer mmap offsets

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:46:15PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 12:39:43PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On 11/8/19 9:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 09:50:36PM +0000, Omer Shalev wrote:
> > >> The cpai2 driver's mmap implementation wasn't properly check for all
> > >> possible offset values. Given a huge offset value , the calculation
> > >> start_offset + size can wrap around to a low value and pass the check
> > > 
> > > I thought we checked that in the core of the kernel now, to keep all
> > > drivers from not having to do this type of thing (as they obviously all
> > > forgot to.)  Why is this still needed here as well?
> > 
> > Where is that checked in the core? I couldn't find anything, but I might
> > have been looking in the wrong place.
> 
> Sorry, took me a while to find it.  Look at be83bbf80682 ("mmap:
> introduce sane default mmap limits") as I think this should handle the
> problem already.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Thanks Greg. But All other drivers I've seen implement it like that: if(size > total_size || offset >
total_size - size). Which I think, is a better way to write this code, and generally more
secure. Plus, no extra code is needed (just changing this line).

Please let me know what you think.

Best regards,

Omer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ