On 2018-05-04 07:28, Wenwen Wang wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-04 06:08, Wenwen Wang wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-05-03 00:36, Wenwen Wang wrote:
>>>>> In i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(), there are two buffers: msgbuf0 and msgbuf1,
>>>>> which are used to save a series of messages, as mentioned in the comment.
>>>>> According to the value of the variable "size", msgbuf0 is initialized to
>>>>> various values. In contrast, msgbuf1 is left uninitialized until the
>>>>> function i2c_transfer() is invoked. However, mgsbuf1 is not always
>>>>> initialized on all possible execution paths (implementation) of
>>>>> i2c_transfer(). Thus, it is possible that mgsbuf1 may still not be
>>>>
>>>> double negation here
>>>>
>>>>> uninitialized even after the invocation of the function i2c_transfer(). In
>>>>> the following execution, the uninitialized msgbuf1 will be used, such as
>>>>> for security checks. Since uninitialized values can be random and
>>>>> arbitrary, this will cause undefined behaviors or even check bypass. For
>>>>> example, it is expected that if the value of "size" is
>>>>> I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_PROC_CALL, the value of data->block[0] should not be larger
>>>>> than I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX. But, at the end of i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(), the
>>>>> value read from msgbuf1 is assigned to data->block[0], which can
>>>>> potentially lead to invalid block write size, as demonstrated in the error
>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch simply initializes the buffer msgbuf1 with 0 to avoid undefined
>>>>> behaviors or security issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang <wang6495@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>>> index b5aec33..0fcca75 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
>>>>> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16 addr,
>>>>> * somewhat simpler.
>>>>> */
>>>>> unsigned char msgbuf0[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+3];
>>>>> - unsigned char msgbuf1[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+2];
>>>>> + unsigned char msgbuf1[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+2] = {0};
>>>>
>>>> I think this will result in the whole of msgbuf1 being filled with zeroes.
>>>> It might be cheaper to do this with code proper rather than with an
>>>> initializer?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comment, Peter! How about using a memset() only when
>>> i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated() emulates reading commands, since msgbuf1 is
>>> used only in that case?
>>
>> I was thinking that an assignment of
>>
>> msgbuf1[0] = 0;
>>
>> would be enough in the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA and I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_PROC_CALL
>> cases before the i2c_transfer call. However, this will only kick in if
>> the call to kzalloc fails (and it most likely will not) in the call to the
>> i2c_smbus_try_get_dmabuf helper. So, this thing that you are trying to fix
>> seems like a non-issue to me.
>>
>> However, while looking I think the bigger problem with that function is that
>> it considers all non-negative return values from i2c_transfer as good<tm>.
>> IMHO, it should barf on any return values <> num. Or at the very least
>> describe why a partial result is considered OK...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>> int num = read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ ? 2 : 1;
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> u8 partial_pec = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is a big issue if the return value from i2c_transfer() is not
> equal to num. I can add a check like this:
>
> if (status != num)
> return -EINVAL;
>
Right, but make sure to add it *after* the existing "if (status < 0)"
check as we want to preserve any existing error. Also, -EIO is perhaps
more appropriate than -EINVAL which seems wrong for what is probably
a runtime incident.
> Also, I wonder why msgbuf1 is necessary if it is replaced by kzalloc
> in i2c_smbus_try_get_dmabuf()?
It is not always replaced. The stack buffer is probably retained as
the default mode of operation (and fallback) because kzalloc is
expensive and because kzalloc might fail?
Cheers,
Peter
> Thanks,
> Wenwen
>
