linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal: sysfs: Perform bounds check when storing thermal states

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: <6eed01c90fafe681cccba2f227d65f2e9bfb8348.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 06 Jul 2022 16:51:59 +0800
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Varad Gautam <varadgautam@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: sysfs: Perform bounds check when storing
 thermal states

On Wed, 2022-07-06 at 09:16 +0200, Varad Gautam wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Varad Gautam wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 6:18 PM Greg KH <
> > > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 03:00:02PM +0000, Varad Gautam wrote:
> > > > > Check that a user-provided thermal state is within the
> > > > > maximum
> > > > > thermal states supported by a given driver before attempting
> > > > > to
> > > > > apply it. This prevents a subsequent OOB access in
> > > > > thermal_cooling_device_stats_update() while performing
> > > > > state-transition accounting on drivers that do not have this
> > > > > check
> > > > > in their set_cur_state() handle.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Varad Gautam <varadgautam@...gle.com>
> > > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c
> > > > > b/drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c
> > > > > index 1c4aac8464a7..0c6b0223b133 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c
> > > > > @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ cur_state_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > >               const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev =
> > > > > to_cooling_device(dev);
> > > > > -     unsigned long state;
> > > > > +     unsigned long state, max_state;
> > > > >       int result;
> > > > > 
> > > > >       if (sscanf(buf, "%ld\n", &state) != 1)
> > > > > @@ -618,10 +618,20 @@ cur_state_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > > 
> > > > >       mutex_lock(&cdev->lock);
> > > > > 
> > > > > +     result = cdev->ops->get_max_state(cdev, &max_state);
> > > > > +     if (result)
> > > > > +             goto unlock;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (state > max_state) {
> > > > > +             result = -EINVAL;
> > > > > +             goto unlock;
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +
> > > > >       result = cdev->ops->set_cur_state(cdev, state);
> > > > 
> > > > Why doesn't set_cur_state() check the max state before setting
> > > > it?  Why
> > > > are the callers forced to always check it before?  That feels
> > > > wrong...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The problem lies in thermal_cooling_device_stats_update(), not
> > > set_cur_state().
> > > 
> > > If ->set_cur_state() doesn't error out on invalid state,
> > > thermal_cooling_device_stats_update() does a:
> > > 
> > > stats->trans_table[stats->state * stats->max_states +
> > > new_state]++;
> > > 
> > > stats->trans_table reserves space depending on max_states, but
> > > we'd end up
> > > reading/writing outside it. cur_state_store() can prevent this
> > > regardless of
> > > the driver's ->set_cur_state() implementation.
> > 
> > Why wouldn't cur_state_store() check for an out-of-bounds condition
> > by
> > calling get_max_state() and then return an error if it is invalid,
> > preventing thermal_cooling_device_stats_update() from ever being
> > called?
> > 
> 
> That's what this patch does, it adds the out-of-bounds check.

No, I think Greg' question is
why cdev->ops->set_cur_state() return 0 when setting a cooling state
that exceeds the maximum cooling state?

thanks,
rui
> 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h