[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533C3EEE.6020004@linux-pingi.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:46:38 +0200
From: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...ux-pingi.de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug report] buffer overflow in isdn capi
Hi Dan,
thanks for spotting this, really a bad thing.
Fortunately it is only a local issue, the messages from the ISDN bus
are translated in valid command/subcommand pairs in the controller
firmware, so even if you send random data on the D-channel
it should not result in a buffer overflow.
But of course a local user could send wrong messages to the kernel
via the /dev/capi20 device which then may let to the described out
of bound access.
Am 01.04.2014 17:48, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> The command_2_index() function is buggy and leads to a buffer overflow.
> Does anyone know how to fix this?
>
I think I have an idea, I will post a proposal soon.
> drivers/isdn/capi/capiutil.c
> 403 static unsigned command_2_index(unsigned c, unsigned sc)
> 404 {
> 405 if (c & 0x80)
> 406 c = 0x9 + (c & 0x0f);
> 407 else if (c <= 0x0f);
> 408 else if (c == 0x41)
> 409 c = 0x9 + 0x1;
> 410 else if (c == 0xff)
> 411 c = 0x00;
> 412 return (sc & 3) * (0x9 + 0x9) + c;
> 413 }
>
> Imagine that we input c = 0x7f and sc = 0x3. Then 3 * 18 + 127 = 181
> and we return 181.
Yes need to check the array size at least, but this is not enough.
>
> The other thing that stands out to me is that the last condition
> "(c == 0xff)" is never true because then the first condition
> "(c & 0x80)" would have been true already.
Yes this should be the first check or a nested if in the current first
check. command FF is the MANUFACTURER command and normally not
implemented at all.
>
> Here is how the function is used:
>
> drivers/isdn/capi/capiutil.c
> 564 /**
> 565 * capi_message2cmsg() - disassemble CAPI 2.0 message into _cmsg structure
> 566 * @cmsg: _cmsg structure
> 567 * @msg: buffer for assembled message
> 568 *
> 569 * Return value: 0 for success
> 570 */
> 571
> 572 unsigned capi_message2cmsg(_cmsg *cmsg, u8 *msg)
> 573 {
> 574 memset(cmsg, 0, sizeof(_cmsg));
> 575 cmsg->m = msg;
> 576 cmsg->l = 8;
> 577 cmsg->p = 0;
> 578 byteTRcpy(cmsg->m + 4, &cmsg->Command);
> 579 byteTRcpy(cmsg->m + 5, &cmsg->Subcommand);
> 580 cmsg->par = cpars[command_2_index(cmsg->Command, cmsg->Subcommand)];
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> cpars = is a 79 element array.
> cmsg->Command and cmsg->Subcommand come from skb->data so we can't trust
> them.
> 181 is past the end of the 79 element array.
correct and this is not the only issue here. If you pass a value which
is not a valid command, but will result in a index inside the array
boundaries, it will result in cmsg->par = NULL, which is also not
handled properly in the parser functions.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists