linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: host: Add alignment check for event ring read pointer

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: <20231029072645.GA2481@thinkpad>
Date:   Sun, 29 Oct 2023 12:56:45 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>,
        mhi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com,
        quic_ramkri@...cinc.com, quic_skananth@...cinc.com,
        quic_parass@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: host: Add alignment check for event ring read
 pointer

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 08:19:44AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 10/27/2023 7:09 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
> > > Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
> > > to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
> > > pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
> > > are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
> > 
> > "mhi_tre" got renamed to "mhi_ring_element"
> > 
> > > to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
> > > 
> > > So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
> > > 
> > 
> > Since this is a potential fix, you should add the fixes tag and CC stable.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> > >   static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
> > >   {
> > > -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
> > > +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;
> > 
> > How about,
> > 
> > !(addr % 16)
> 
> We are guaranteed that the ring allocation is 16 byte aligned, right?
> 
> I think using "struct mhi_ring_element" instead of "16" would be better.
> 
> I'm also thinking that perhaps doing a bit-wise & with a mask would be
> better than the % operator.  Not only is that how these alignment checks
> seem to normally be done elsewhere, but this check is in a critical patch
> for the MHI stack.
> 

Yes, both of your suggestions sounds good to me.

Chaitanya, please use below check:

	!(addr & (sizeof(struct mhi_ring_element) - 1))

- Mani

> -Jeff
> 

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்