linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 540/545] tee: add overflow check in register_shm

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: <CAHUa44HmKs4MVpe9DxHLOTwjLbhgTu0mcxhtbpR6oCLyC3vWdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:07:51 +0200
From:   Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Nimish Mishra <neelam.nimish@...il.com>,
        Anirban Chakraborty <ch.anirban00727@...il.com>,
        Debdeep Mukhopadhyay <debdeep.mukhopadhyay@...il.com>,
        Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@...aro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 540/545] tee: add overflow check in register_shm_helper()

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:03 PM Jens Wiklander
<jens.wiklander@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 1:15 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > From: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > commit 573ae4f13f630d6660008f1974c0a8a29c30e18a upstream.
> > >
> > > With special lengths supplied by user space, register_shm_helper() has
> > > an integer overflow when calculating the number of pages covered by a
> > > supplied user space memory region.
> > >
> > > This causes internal_get_user_pages_fast() a helper function of
> > > pin_user_pages_fast() to do a NULL pointer dereference:
> >
> > Maybe this needs fixing, but this fix adds a memory leak or two. Note
> > the goto err, that needs to be done.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I believe the best option is to take the
> backport I just did for 5.4, it should apply cleanly on the 5.10
> stable kernel too.
>
> Greg,  can you cherry-pick the 5.4 backport patch, or would you rather
> have an explicit backport for this stable kernel?

I'm sorry, I'm confused by all the backports. I haven't posted the 5.4
yet, I've only just tested it. I'll tag that backport patch for 5.10
stable too.

Thanks,
Jens

>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> >                                                                 Pavel
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
> >
> > > +++ b/drivers/tee/tee_shm.c
> > > @@ -222,6 +222,9 @@ struct tee_shm *tee_shm_register(struct
> > >               goto err;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     if (!access_ok((void __user *)addr, length))
> > > +             return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> > > +
> > >       mutex_lock(&teedev->mutex);
> > >       shm->id = idr_alloc(&teedev->idr, shm, 1, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >       mutex_unlock(&teedev->mutex);
> > >
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_shm.c b/drivers/tee/tee_shm.c
> > index 6e662fb131d5..283fa50676a2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tee/tee_shm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/tee_shm.c
> > @@ -222,8 +222,10 @@ struct tee_shm *tee_shm_register(struct tee_context *ctx, unsigned long addr,
> >                 goto err;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (!access_ok((void __user *)addr, length))
> > -               return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> > +       if (!access_ok((void __user *)addr, length)) {
> > +               ret = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> > +               goto err;
> > +       }
> >
> >         mutex_lock(&teedev->mutex);
> >         shm->id = idr_alloc(&teedev->idr, shm, 1, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > --
> > DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany