Re: [PATCH] tty: vt: selection: Add check for valid tiocl_selection values

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04. 08. 22, 10:44, Helge Deller wrote:
On 8/4/22 09:15, Helge Deller wrote:
Hello Jiri,

Thanks for looking into this patch!

On 8/4/22 07:47, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 30. 07. 22, 20:49, Helge Deller wrote:
The line and column numbers for the selection need to start at 1.
Add the checks to prevent invalid input.

Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>
Reported-by: syzbot+14b0e8f3fd1612e35350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
index f7755e73696e..58692a9b4097 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
@@ -326,6 +326,9 @@ static int vc_selection(struct vc_data *vc, struct tiocl_selection *v,
           return 0;
       }

+    if (!v->xs || !v->ys || !v->xe || !v->ye)
+        return -EINVAL;

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. It potentially breaks userspace (by
returning EINVAL now).

Right.
According to the code below, my interpretation is that all xs/ys/xe/ye values
should be > 0. But of course I might be wrong on this, as I didn't find any
documentation for TIOCL_SETSEL.

And if userspace tries to set an invalid selection (e.g. by selecting row 0),
my patch now returns -EINVAL, while it returned success before.

And the code below should handle this just fine, right:
       v->xs = min_t(u16, v->xs - 1, vc->vc_cols - 1);
       v->ys = min_t(u16, v->ys - 1, vc->vc_rows - 1);
       v->xe = min_t(u16, v->xe - 1, vc->vc_cols - 1);

It "handles it fine" in the sense that it can cope with the
input and will not crash.
But it returns (maybe?) unexpected results...

After some more thinking maybe you are right.
In case a user provided invalid values in the past, simply an unexpected
selection was set, but nothing broke.
Since the patch doesn't fix any critical issue, we could just drop this patch
and leave it as is.

We can still do a trial and revert it if something breaks... It's just that _noone_ knows with all this undocumented stuff ;).

But in fact, 0 currently means full row/column. Isn't it on purpose?

Today, we are out of luck, codesearch.debian.net gives no clue about users:
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5CbTIOCL_SETSEL%5Cb&literal=0

thanks,
--
js
suse labs



[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Tourism]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux