netdev - Re: [PATCH] FS, NET: Fix KMSAN uninit-value in vfs

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]

Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 21:22:29 +0100
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, himadrispandya@...il.com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+c9bfd85eca611ebf5db1@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FS, NET: Fix KMSAN uninit-value in vfs_write



On 20.03.23 16:40, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 14.03.2023 20:23:47, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14.03.23 16:37, Ivan Orlov wrote:
>>> On 3/14/23 18:38, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>> Hello Ivan,
>>>>
>>>> besides the fact that we would read some uninitialized value the
>>>> outcome of the original implementation would have been an error and
>>>> a termination of the copy process too. Maybe throwing a different
>>>> error number.
>>>>
>>>> But it is really interesting to see what KMSAN is able to detect
>>>> these days! Many thanks for the finding and your effort to
>>>> contribute this fix!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14.03.23 13:04, Ivan Orlov wrote:
>>>>> Syzkaller reported the following issue:
>>>>
>>>> (..)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+c9bfd85eca611ebf5db1@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=47f897f8ad958bbde5790ebf389b5e7e0a345089
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    net/can/bcm.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>>>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
>>>>> index 27706f6ace34..a962ec2b8ba5 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/can/bcm.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/can/bcm.c
>>>>> @@ -941,6 +941,8 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head
>>>>> *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
>>>>>                cf = op->frames + op->cfsiz * i;
>>>>>                err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)cf, msg, op->cfsiz);
>>>>> +            if (err < 0)
>>>>> +                goto free_op;
>>>>>                if (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) {
>>>>>                    if (cf->len > 64)
>>>>> @@ -950,12 +952,8 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head
>>>>> *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
>>>>>                        err = -EINVAL;
>>>>>                }
>>>>> -            if (err < 0) {
>>>>> -                if (op->frames != &op->sframe)
>>>>> -                    kfree(op->frames);
>>>>> -                kfree(op);
>>>>> -                return err;
>>>>> -            }
>>>>> +            if (err < 0)
>>>>> +                goto free_op;
>>>>>                if (msg_head->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) {
>>>>>                    /* copy can_id into frame */
>>>>> @@ -1026,6 +1024,12 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct
>>>>> bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
>>>>>            bcm_tx_start_timer(op);
>>>>>        return msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz + MHSIZ;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +free_op:
>>>>> +    if (op->frames != &op->sframe)
>>>>> +        kfree(op->frames);
>>>>> +    kfree(op);
>>>>> +    return err;
>>>>>    }
>>>>>    /*
>>>
>>> Thank you for the quick answer! I totally agree that this patch will not
>>> change the behavior a lot. However, I think a little bit more error
>>> processing will not be bad (considering this will not bring any
>>> performance overhead). If someone in the future tries to use the "cf"
>>> object right after "memcpy_from_msg" call without proper error
>>> processing it will lead to a bug (which will be hard to trigger). Maybe
>>> fixing it now to avoid possible future mistakes in the future makes
>>> sense?
>>
>> Yes! Definitely!
>>
>> Therefore I added my Acked-by: tag. Marc will likely pick this patch for
>> upstream.
> 
> Can you create a proper Fixes tag?

Fixes: 6f3b911d5f29b ("can: bcm: add support for CAN FD frames")

Btw. do you really think this is a candidate for stable?

IMHO it is just a KMSAN hit that should be fixed for future releases ...

Best regards,
Oliver