linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kobject_uevent: Fix OOB access within zap_modalias

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: <2024052405-award-recycling-6931@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:47:14 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: quic_zijuhu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kobject_uevent: Fix OOB access within zap_modalias_env()

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:08:06PM +0800, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> On 5/24/2024 2:56 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:34:49PM +0800, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2024 1:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:15:01PM +0800, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2024 12:33 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 12:20:03PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> >>>>>> zap_modalias_env() wrongly calculates size of memory block
> >>>>>> to move, so maybe cause OOB memory access issue, fixed by
> >>>>>> correcting size to memmove.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "maybe" or "does"?  That's a big difference :)
> >>>>>
> >>>> i found this issue by reading code instead of really meeting this issue.
> >>>> this issue should be prone to happen if there are more than 1 other
> >>>> environment vars.
> >>>
> >>> But does it?  Given that we have loads of memory checkers, and I haven't
> >>> ever seen any report of any overrun, it would be nice to be sure.
> >>>
> >> yes. if @env includes env vairable MODALIAS and  more than one other env
> >> vairables. then (env->buflen - len) must be greater that actual size of
> >> "target block" shown previously, so the OOB issue must happen.
> > 
> > Then why are none of the tools that we have for catching out-of-bound
> > issues triggered here?  Are the tools broken or is this really just not
> > ever happening?  It would be good to figure that out...
> > 
> don't know why. perhaps, need to report our case to expert of tools.

Try running them yourself and see!