[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3EF6B9AD-36BD-459F-A59A-B8E875D8E32C@m.fudan.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 17:52:43 +0800
From: Kun Hu <huk23@...udan.edu.cn>
Cc: linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug: slab-out-of-bounds in snd_seq_oss_synth_sysex
>
> The only place incrementing sysex->len is that loop and it has already
> the bounce check which resets sysex->len to 0. That is, the likely
> reason of the buffer overflow is rather the racy calls of this
> function.
>
> If so, a potential fix would be rather to protect the concurrency,
> e.g. a simplest form is something like below.
> Could you check whether it addresses your problem?
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>
> -- 8< --
> --- a/sound/core/seq/oss/seq_oss_synth.c
> +++ b/sound/core/seq/oss/seq_oss_synth.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ static struct seq_oss_synth midi_synth_dev = {
> };
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(register_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sysex_mutex);
>
> /*
> * prototypes
> @@ -497,6 +498,7 @@ snd_seq_oss_synth_sysex(struct seq_oss_devinfo *dp, int dev, unsigned char *buf,
> if (!info)
> return -ENXIO;
>
> + guard(mutex)(&sysex_mutex);
> sysex = info->sysex;
> if (sysex == NULL) {
> sysex = kzalloc(sizeof(*sysex), GFP_KERNEL);
Hi,
I did a lot of reproduction testing and it was very easy to reproduce before the lock was added, after the lock was added the error was no longer reproducible.
Thanks,
Kun Hu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists