linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi: fix potential NULL deref in efi_mem_reserve

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

Message-ID: <CAMj1kXG6x+mSR1Vu-MM6+4rr7A_abew53yqMvkx3=h114pcJBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 14:28:38 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Anton Gusev <aagusev@...ras.ru>
Cc:     Jonathan Richardson <jonathan.richardson@...adcom.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: fix potential NULL deref in efi_mem_reserve_persistent

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 14:23, Anton Gusev <aagusev@...ras.ru> wrote:
>
> When iterating on a linked list, a result of memremap is dereferenced
> without checking it for NULL.
>
> This patch adds a check that falls back on allocating a new page in
> case memremap doesn't succeed.
>
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>
> Fixes: 18df7577adae ("efi/memreserve: deal with memreserve entries in unmapped memory")
> Signed-off-by: Anton Gusev <aagusev@...ras.ru>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index a2b0cbc8741c..48d30c806d94 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@ int __ref efi_mem_reserve_persistent(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>         /* first try to find a slot in an existing linked list entry */
>         for (prsv = efi_memreserve_root->next; prsv; ) {
>                 rsv = memremap(prsv, sizeof(*rsv), MEMREMAP_WB);
> +               if (!rsv)
> +                       break;

Thanks for the patch.

Why do you think 'break' is the correct action here?


>                 index = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&rsv->count, 1, rsv->size);
>                 if (index < rsv->size) {
>                         rsv->entry[index].base = addr;
> --
> 2.39.1
>