linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: Block path traversal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZsPf02GrdMiyZP8a@pollux>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 02:14:11 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: Block path traversal

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 01:18:54AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> Most firmware names are hardcoded strings, or are constructed from fairly
> constrained format strings where the dynamic parts are just some hex
> numbers or such.
> 
> However, there are a couple codepaths in the kernel where firmware file
> names contain string components that are passed through from a device or
> semi-privileged userspace; the ones I could find (not counting interfaces
> that require root privileges) are:
> 
>  - lpfc_sli4_request_firmware_update() seems to construct the firmware
>    filename from "ModelName", a string that was previously parsed out of
>    some descriptor ("Vital Product Data") in lpfc_fill_vpd()
>  - nfp_net_fw_find() seems to construct a firmware filename from a model
>    name coming from nfp_hwinfo_lookup(pf->hwinfo, "nffw.partno"), which I
>    think parses some descriptor that was read from the device.
>    (But this case likely isn't exploitable because the format string looks
>    like "netronome/nic_%s", and there shouldn't be any *folders* starting
>    with "netronome/nic_". The previous case was different because there,
>    the "%s" is *at the start* of the format string.)
>  - module_flash_fw_schedule() is reachable from the
>    ETHTOOL_MSG_MODULE_FW_FLASH_ACT netlink command, which is marked as
>    GENL_UNS_ADMIN_PERM (meaning CAP_NET_ADMIN inside a user namespace is
>    enough to pass the privilege check), and takes a userspace-provided
>    firmware name.
>    (But I think to reach this case, you need to have CAP_NET_ADMIN over a
>    network namespace that a special kind of ethernet device is mapped into,
>    so I think this is not a viable attack path in practice.)
> 
> For what it's worth, I went looking and haven't found any USB device
> drivers that use the firmware loader dangerously.

Your commit message very well describes the status quo, but only implies the
problem, and skips how you intend to solve it.

> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: abb139e75c2c ("firmware: teach the kernel to load firmware files directly from the filesystem")
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> ---
> I wasn't sure whether to mark this one for stable or not - but I think
> since there seems to be at least one PCI device model which could
> trigger firmware loading with directory traversal, we should probably
> backport the fix?
> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> index a03ee4b11134..a32be64f3bf5 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> @@ -864,7 +864,15 @@ _request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name,
>  	if (!firmware_p)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (!name || name[0] == '\0') {
> +	/*
> +	 * Reject firmware file names with "/../" sequences in them.
> +	 * There are drivers that construct firmware file names from
> +	 * device-supplied strings, and we don't want some device to be able
> +	 * to tell us "I would like to be sent my firmware from
> +	 * ../../../etc/shadow, please".
> +	 */
> +	if (!name || name[0] == '\0' ||
> +	    strstr(name, "/../") != NULL || strncmp(name, "../", 3) == 0) {

Seems reasonable, but are there any API users that rely on that?

I guess we can't just check for strstr(name, "../"), because "foo.." is a valid
file name? Maybe it would be worth adding a comment and / or a small
helper function for that.

I also suggest to update the documentation of the firmware loader API to let
people know that going back the path isn't tolerated by this API.

>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
> ---
> base-commit: b0da640826ba3b6506b4996a6b23a429235e6923
> change-id: 20240820-firmware-traversal-6df8501b0fe4
> -- 
> Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
>