On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for >>> > relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows. >>> > >>> > CVE-2013-0913 >>> > >>> > v3: collapse test, improve comment >>> > v2: move check into validate_exec_list >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> > Reported-by: Pinkie Pie >>> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> Looks good to me. The only bikeshed that remains is whether we should >>> just collapse the two variables into one, but the current 'max - count' >>> is more idiomatic and so preferrable. >>> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Picked up for -fixes, thanks for the patch. > > I've forgotten to dump my wishlist: Can I have an i-g-t for this? For > this bug here specifically an execbuf with just one buffer with too > many relocs plus another execbuf with two buffers with relocation so > that the 2nd relocation list will overflow should be sufficient. Sure thing. Where do these live? (Or what docs should I read for this?) I'm assuming i-g-t means "intel graphics test"? :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
