lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] tpm-dev-common: Reject too short writes
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 03:42:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 07:36:42PM +0200, Alexander Steffen wrote:
> > tpm_transmit() does not offer an explicit interface to indicate the number
> > of valid bytes in the communication buffer. Instead, it relies on the
> > commandSize field in the TPM header that is encoded within the buffer.
> > Therefore, ensure that a) enough data has been written to the buffer, so
> > that the commandSize field is present and b) the commandSize field does not
> > announce more data than has been written to the buffer.
> >
> > This should have been fixed with CVE-2011-1161 long ago, but apparently
> > a correct version of that patch never made it into the kernel.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Moved all changes to tpm_common_write in a single patch.
> >
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c
> > index 610638a..ac25574 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c
> > @@ -99,7 +99,8 @@ ssize_t tpm_common_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > if (atomic_read(&priv->data_pending) != 0)
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > - if (in_size > TPM_BUFSIZE)
> > + if (in_size > sizeof(priv->data_buffer) || in_size < 6 ||
> > + in_size < be32_to_cpu(*((__be32 *) (buf + 2))))
> > return -E2BIG;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&priv->buffer_mutex);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
> How did you test this change after you implemented it?
>
> Just thinking what to add to https://github.com/jsakkine-intel/tpm2-scripts
>
> /Jarkko

Just when I started to implement this that the bug fix itself does not
have yet the right semantics.

It should be just add a new check:

if (in_size != be32_to_cpu(*((__be32 *) (buf + 2))))
return -EINVAL;

The existing check is correct. This was missing. The reason for this is
that we process whatever is in the in_size bytes as a full command.

Sorry I didn't notice before I started to implement a test case.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-06 14:51    [W:0.051 / U:5.428 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site