linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kconfig: nconf: stop endless search-up loops

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:   Sat, 27 Mar 2021 08:58:49 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Mihai Moldovan <ionic@...ic.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: nconf: stop endless search-up loops

On 3/27/21 5:01 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> If the user selects the very first entry in a page and performs a
> search-up operation (e.g., via [/][a][Up Arrow]), nconf will never
> terminate searching the page.
> 
> The reason is that in this case, the starting point will be set to -1,
> which is then translated into (n - 1) (i.e., the last entry of the
> page) and finally the search begins. This continues to work fine until
> the index reaches 0, at which point it will be decremented to -1, but
> not checked against the starting point right away. Instead, it's
> wrapped around to the bottom again, after which the starting point
> check occurs... and naturally fails.
> 
> We can easily avoid it by checking against the starting point directly
> if the current index is -1 (which should be safe, since it's the only
> magic value that can occur) and terminate the matching function.
> 
> Amazingly, nobody seems to have been hit by this for 11 years - or at
> the very least nobody bothered to debug and fix this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Moldovan <ionic@...ic.de>

Nice catch.

> ---
>  scripts/kconfig/nconf.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/nconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/nconf.c
> index e0f965529166..92a5403d8afa 100644
> --- a/scripts/kconfig/nconf.c
> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/nconf.c
> @@ -515,6 +515,15 @@ static int get_mext_match(const char *match_str, match_f flag)
>  			--index;
>  		else
>  			++index;
> +		/*
> +		 * It's fine for index to become negative - think of an
> +		 * initial value for match_start of 0 with a match direction
> +		 * of up, eventually making it -1.
> +		 *
> +		 * Handle this as a special case.
> +		 */
> +		if ((-1 == index) && (index == match_start))

checkpatch doesn't complain about this (and I wonder how it's missed), but
kernel style is (mostly) "constant goes on right hand side of comparison",
so
		if ((index == -1) &&

Otherwise LGTM.
Thanks.

> +			return -1;
>  		index = (index + items_num) % items_num;
>  		if (index == match_start)
>  			return -1;
> 


-- 
~Randy