linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/sev-es: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop over prefixes.bytes

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: <202012021104.0C38FB7FD@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:07:26 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/sev-es: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop
 over prefixes.bytes

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:31:57AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 12/2/20 2:51 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Since the insn.prefixes.nbytes can be bigger than the size of
> > insn.prefixes.bytes[] when a same prefix is repeated, we have to
> > check whether the insn.prefixes.bytes[i] != 0 and i < 4 instead
> > of insn.prefixes.nbytes.
> > 
> > Fixes: 25189d08e516 ("x86/sev-es: Add support for handling IOIO exceptions")
> > Reported-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev-es.c |    2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev-es.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev-es.c
> > index 954cb2702e23..6a7a3027c9ac 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev-es.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev-es.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static bool insn_has_rep_prefix(struct insn *insn)
> >   	insn_get_prefixes(insn);
> > -	for (i = 0; i < insn->prefixes.nbytes; i++) {
> > +	for (i = 0; insn->prefixes.bytes[i] && i < 4; i++) {

You must test "i" before bytes[i] or you still do the out-of-bounds-read.

> 
> Wouldn't it be better to create a #define for the size rather than hard
> coding 4 in the various files? That would protect everything should the
> bytes array size ever change in the future.

Agreed, and perhaps instead of repeating the idiom in the for loop, add
a helper like:

#define insn_prefix_valid(prefixes, i) (i >=0 && i < 4 && prefixes->bytes[i])

to be used like:

	for (i = 0; insn_prefix_valid(&insn->prefixes, i); i++) {

> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> >   		insn_byte_t p = insn->prefixes.bytes[i];
> >   		if (p == 0xf2 || p == 0xf3)
> > 

-- 
Kees Cook