linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: aspeed: fix buffer overflow

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: <49d97f97e63edb70392279845186547d73b2290e.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:29:23 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Lei Yu <yulei.sh@...edance.com>
Cc:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Henry Tian <tianxiaofeng@...edance.com>,
        Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        "moderated list:ARM/ASPEED MACHINE SUPPORT" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/ASPEED MACHINE SUPPORT" 
        <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: aspeed: fix buffer overflow

On Tue, 2022-10-25 at 14:21 +0800, Lei Yu wrote:
> 

> This case is treated as an error and we do not care about the
> following data.
> Similarly, if we change the MTU in BMC and let BMC ping the OS, the
> OS
> kernel does not crash and it gets RX errors, and the ping fails.
> 
>  # ifconfig usb0
>  usb0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>          ...
>          RX packets 85  bytes 15380 (15.0 KiB)
>          RX errors 51  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 51
> 
> With this patch, we get the similar behavior on BMC that the RX
> errors
> are increasing.
> 
> > Additionally, I'm curious, why in this specific case is the device
> > sending more data than
> > the buffer can hold ? The MTU change should have resulted in
> > buffers being re-allocated no ?
> 
> The issue is found in a rare case during BIOS boot, we assume that
> BIOS is sending unexpected data to BMC for unknown reasons.

Ok thanks.

Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>


> > Or did you change the MTU on the remote and not on the local device
> > ?
> > 
> 
> Yes, the MTU is changed to 2000 in OS and kept 1500 on BMC, then the
> issue is reproduced. (see detailed steps in the above email).
> 
> The reason we made the above test is because we are trying to
> reproduce the behavior as BIOS, and from the logs it looks like it's
> sending a packet larger than MTU. Then we tried to adjust the MTU on
> the OS side and reproduced the issue.