Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:54 PM Tomas Bortoli <tomasbortoli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/1/19 8:32 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:44:29PM +0100, Tomas Bortoli wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sorry for the multiple emails but I have checked again the code and
> >> looks like process_adv_report() reads from ev->data for a size of
> >> ev->length.
> >>
> >> I attach a patch that applies the bound check to both
> >> hci_le_ext_adv_report_evt() and hci_le_adv_report_evt().
> >>
> >
> > You're right that both need to be fixed.
> >
> >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> >> index 609fd6871c5a..275926e0753e 100644
> >> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> >> @@ -5345,6 +5345,7 @@ static void hci_le_adv_report_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> {
> >> u8 num_reports = skb->data[0];
> >> void *ptr = &skb->data[1];
> >> + u8 *end = &skb->data[skb->len - 1];
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> hci_dev_lock(hdev);
> >>
> >> @@ -5352,6 +5353,9 @@ static void hci_le_adv_report_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> struct hci_ev_le_advertising_info *ev = ptr;
> >> s8 rssi;
> >>
> >> + if (ev->data + ev->length > end)
> >
> > No, this isn't right. You've removed the + 1 and you've introduced an
> > additional "sbk->len - 1" so we're off by two... The test is supposed
> > to be:
> >
> > start + length_read > start + length_of_buffer
> >
>
> afaict: ev->data = start and length_read = ev->length
> and the right side of the condition is the upper limit. "end" as defined
> in my patch is the last readable byte of skb->data (or am I wrong on
> this too?)
>
> > So the end has to be &skb->data[skb->len]. The "+ 1" comes from later
> > in the function when we do:
> >
> > ptr += sizeof(*ev) + ev->length + 1;
> > ^^^^
> >
> > I don't where the "+ 1" comes from, but I know the condition and the
> > increment should match. We could use ev->data instead of
> > "ptr + sizeof(*ev)" but to me, because the mysterious "+ 1" then it
> > seems more readable to match the increment exactly...
>
> We really have to first understand why there is that + 1 there. I agree
> that the condition and the increment should match, otherwise or there is
> a mistake in the error condition or the increment just skips 1 byte, not
> reading the last per each cycle, for no reason (very unlikely).
>
> Reading process_adv_report() I spotted some memcpy() and other reads of
> the memory area that begins at data (ev->data) and ends at (ev->data +
> length).
>
> Could anybody clarify the logic of that inc ?
>
"+ 1" is required in adv_report_evt since there is one more field
"rssi" after data
so you need + 1 to point to next report, where as it is not required
in ext_adv_report_evt
since rssi is present before data. I have already raised a patch to
fix it the in ML.
Thanks,
Jaganath
