netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] bnxt: avoid overflow in bnxt_get_nvram

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: <5ad788427171d3c0374f24d4714ba0b429cbcfdf.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:34:30 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bnxt: avoid overflow in bnxt_get_nvram_directory()

On Sun, 2023-02-19 at 15:14 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:46:56AM +0300, Maxim Korotkov wrote:
> > The value of an arithmetic expression is subject
> > of possible overflow due to a failure to cast operands to a larger data
> > type before performing arithmetic. Used macro for multiplication instead
> > operator for avoiding overflow.
> > 
> > Found by Security Code and Linux Verification
> > Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> > 
> > Fixes: c0c050c58d84 ("bnxt_en: New Broadcom ethernet driver.")
> > Signed-off-by: Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@...il.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
> 
> I agree that it is correct to use mul_u32_u32() for multiplication
> of two u32 entities where the result is 64bit, avoiding overflow.
> 
> And I agree that the fixes tag indicates the commit where the code
> in question was introduced.
> 
> However, it is not clear to me if this is a theoretical bug
> or one that can manifest in practice - I think it implies that
> buflen really can be > 4Gbytes.
> 
> And thus it is not clear to me if this patch should be for 'net' or
> 'net-next'.

... especially considered that both 'dir_entries' and 'entry_length'
are copied back to the user-space using a single byte each.

Cheers,

Paolo