netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: 6pack: fix slab-out-of-bounds in decode

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: <20210816071316.GF1931@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:13:16 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     Kevin Dawson <hal@...net.au>, ajk@...nets.uni-bremen.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+fc8cd9a673d4577fb2e4@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: 6pack: fix slab-out-of-bounds in decode_data

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 05:17:44PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/14/21 3:23 AM, Kevin Dawson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 05:58:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:28:55PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > > > Syzbot reported slab-out-of bounds write in decode_data().
> > > > The problem was in missing validation checks.
> > > > > Syzbot's reproducer generated malicious input, which caused
> > > > decode_data() to be called a lot in sixpack_decode(). Since
> > > > rx_count_cooked is only 400 bytes and noone reported before,
> > > > that 400 bytes is not enough, let's just check if input is malicious
> > > > and complain about buffer overrun.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
> > > b/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
> > > > index fcf3af76b6d7..f4ffc2a80ab7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
> > > > @@ -827,6 +827,12 @@ static void decode_data(struct sixpack *sp, unsigned char inbyte)
> > > >  		return;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  > +	if (sp->rx_count_cooked + 3 >= sizeof(sp->cooked_buf)) {
> > > 
> > > It should be + 2 instead of + 3.
> > > 
> > > We write three bytes.  idx, idx + 1, idx + 2.  Otherwise, good fix!
> > 
> > I would suggest that the statement be:
> > 
> > 	if (sp->rx_count_cooked + 3 > sizeof(sp->cooked_buf)) {
> > 
> > or even, because it's a buffer overrun test:
> > 
> > 	if (sp->rx_count_cooked > sizeof(sp->cooked_buf) - 3) {
> > 
> 
> Hmm, I think, it will be more straightforward for someone not aware about
> driver details.
> 
> @Dan, can I add your Reviewed-by tag to v3 and what do you think about
> Kevin's suggestion?
> 

I don't care.  Sure.  I'm also fine with leaving it as is.  I've been
using "idx + 2 >= sizeof()" enough recently that it has become an idiom
for me.  But that's probably a bias on my part.

I guess "idx + 3 > sizeof()" is probably the most readable.  Moving
the + 3 to the other side would prevent integer overflows but we're not
concerned about that here and no need to over engineer things if it
hurts readability.

regards,
dan carpenter