linux-kernel - [PATCH] lib/test_printf.c: split write-beyond-buffer check in two

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210615085044.1923788-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:50:44 +0200
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Justin He <Justin.He@....com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] lib/test_printf.c: split write-beyond-buffer check in two

Before each invocation of vsnprintf(), do_test() memsets the entire
allocated buffer to a sentinel value. That buffer includes leading and
trailing padding which is never included in the buffer area handed to
vsnprintf (spaces merely for clarity):

  pad  test_buffer      pad
  **** **************** ****

Then vsnprintf() is invoked with a bufsize argument <=
BUF_SIZE. Suppose bufsize=10, then we'd have e.g.

 |pad |   test_buffer    |pad |
  **** pizza0 **** ****** ****
 A    B      C    D           E

where vsnprintf() was given the area from B to D.

It is obviously a bug for vsnprintf to touch anything between A and B
or between D and E. The former is checked for as one would expect. But
for the latter, we are actually a little stricter in that we check the
area between C and E.

Split that check in two, providing a clearer error message in case it
was a genuine buffer overrun and not merely a write within the
provided buffer, but after the end of the generated string.

So far, no part of the vsnprintf() implementation has had any use for
using the whole buffer as scratch space, but it's not unreasonable to
allow that, as long as the result is properly nul-terminated and the
return value is the right one. However, it is somewhat unusual, and
most %<something> won't need this, so keep the [C,D] check, but make
it easy for a later patch to make that part opt-out for certain tests.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
---
 lib/test_printf.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c
index ec0d5976bb69..d1d2f898ebae 100644
--- a/lib/test_printf.c
+++ b/lib/test_printf.c
@@ -78,12 +78,17 @@ do_test(int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
 		return 1;
 	}

-	if (memchr_inv(test_buffer + written + 1, FILL_CHAR, BUF_SIZE + PAD_SIZE - (written + 1))) {
+	if (memchr_inv(test_buffer + written + 1, FILL_CHAR, bufsize - (written + 1))) {
 		pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote beyond the nul-terminator\n",
 			bufsize, fmt);
 		return 1;
 	}

+	if (memchr_inv(test_buffer + bufsize, FILL_CHAR, BUF_SIZE + PAD_SIZE - bufsize)) {
+		pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote beyond buffer\n", bufsize, fmt);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
 	if (memcmp(test_buffer, expect, written)) {
 		pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote '%s', expected '%.*s'\n",
 			bufsize, fmt, test_buffer, written, expect);
-- 
2.31.1