lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/24] media: dvb-usb-v2: rtl28xxu: fix null-ptr-deref in rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer
Am 13.05.23 um 19:57 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> From: Zhang Shurong <zhang_shurong@foxmail.com>
>
> In rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer, msg is controlled by user. When msg[i].buf
> is null and msg[i].len is zero, former checks on msg[i].buf would be
> passed. Malicious data finally reach rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer. If accessing
> msg[i].buf[0] without sanity check, null ptr deref would happen.
> We add check on msg[i].len to prevent crash.
>
> Similar commit:
> commit 0ed554fd769a
> ("media: dvb-usb: az6027: fix null-ptr-deref in az6027_i2c_xfer()")
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/tencent_3623572106754AC2F266B316798B0F6CCA05@qq.com
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shurong <zhang_shurong@foxmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/rtl28xxu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/rtl28xxu.c b/drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/rtl28xxu.c
> index 795a012d4020..f7884bb56fcc 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/rtl28xxu.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/rtl28xxu.c
> @@ -176,6 +176,10 @@ static int rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msg[],
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> goto err_mutex_unlock;
> } else if (msg[0].addr == 0x10) {

Is there a need to compare msg[0].addr and msg[1].addr for the combined
write+read transfer?

@Mauro: It seems a lot of i2c_xfer functions do only partial checking of
address and direction for these combined write+read transfers. Is this a
problem?

> + if (msg[0].len < 1 || msg[1].len < 1) {
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto err_mutex_unlock;
> + }
> /* method 1 - integrated demod */
> if (msg[0].buf[0] == 0x00) {
> /* return demod page from driver cache */
> @@ -189,6 +193,10 @@ static int rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msg[],
> ret = rtl28xxu_ctrl_msg(d, &req);
> }
> } else if (msg[0].len < 2) {
> + if (msg[0].len < 1) {
The code sequence is correct, but looks a bit strange. Maybe this is better:
} else if (msg[0].len < 1) {
ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
goto err_mutex_unlock;
} else if (msg[0].len < 2) {

> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto err_mutex_unlock;
> + }
> /* method 2 - old I2C */
> req.value = (msg[0].buf[0] << 8) | (msg[0].addr << 1);
> req.index = CMD_I2C_RD;
> @@ -217,8 +225,16 @@ static int rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msg[],
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> goto err_mutex_unlock;
> } else if (msg[0].addr == 0x10) {
> + if (msg[0].len < 1) {
Is a write of a single byte fine? req.size below will be 0.

> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto err_mutex_unlock;
> + }
> /* method 1 - integrated demod */
> if (msg[0].buf[0] == 0x00) {
> + if (msg[0].len < 2) {
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto err_mutex_unlock;
> + }
> /* save demod page for later demod access */
> dev->page = msg[0].buf[1];
> ret = 0;
> @@ -231,6 +247,10 @@ static int rtl28xxu_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msg[],
> ret = rtl28xxu_ctrl_msg(d, &req);
> }
> } else if ((msg[0].len < 23) && (!dev->new_i2c_write)) {
> + if (msg[0].len < 1) {
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto err_mutex_unlock;
> + }
> /* method 2 - old I2C */
> req.value = (msg[0].buf[0] << 8) | (msg[0].addr << 1);
> req.index = CMD_I2C_WR;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-17 08:55    [W:0.130 / U:2.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site