On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Benjamin Tissoires
>> <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> This driver must validate the availability of the HID output report and
>>>> its size before it can write LED states via buzz_set_leds(). This stops
>>>> a heap overflow that is possible if a device provides a malicious HID
>>>> output report:
>>>>
>>>> [ 108.171280] usb 1-1: New USB device found, idVendor=054c, idProduct=0002
>>>> ...
>>>> [ 117.507877] BUG kmalloc-192 (Not tainted): Redzone overwritten
>>>>
>>>> CVE-2013-2890
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/hid/hid-sony.c | 4 ++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c b/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
>>>> index 87fbe29..b987926 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
>>>> @@ -537,6 +537,10 @@ static int buzz_init(struct hid_device *hdev)
>>>> drv_data = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
>>>> BUG_ON(!(drv_data->quirks & BUZZ_CONTROLLER));
>>>>
>>>> + /* Validate expected report characteristics. */
>>>> + if (!hid_validate_report(hdev, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 1, 7))
>>>
>>> I don't have access to the device anymore, but I still kept the report
>>> descriptors (this is the interesting part):
>>>
>>> 0xa1, 0x02, // Collection (Logical) 60
>>> 0x75, 0x08, // Report Size (8) 62
>>> 0x95, 0x07, // Report Count (7) 64
>>> 0x46, 0xff, 0x00, // Physical Maximum (255) 66
>>> 0x26, 0xff, 0x00, // Logical Maximum (255) 69
>>> 0x09, 0x02, // Usage (Vendor Usage 2) 72
>>> 0x91, 0x02, // Output (Data,Var,Abs) 74
>>> 0xc0, // End Collection 76
>>>
>>> So with the current implementation of hid_validate_report(), it works,
>>> but if another Buzz controller show up at some point with extras
>>> fields in this output report... we will be screwed. So please, amend
>>> hid_validate_report(), or specifically test here that the LED output
>>> report is 7 bytes.
>>
>> hid_validate_report() checks for "at least" 7 in this call, so it
>> should be fine, unless I've misunderstood something.
>>
>
> Sure, it' s fine with the current implementation of
> hid_validate_report(). However, as I mentioned in patch
> 2/14, I am complaining about the implementation of hid_validate_report().
>
> In this case, if a new Buzz controller pops out with an extra usage
> (Vendor 3 for instance), mapped to another LED, and that the report
> count is for this usage < 7, the test invalidate the report.
>
> for instance, let's imagine they pop up a new version:
>
> 0xa1, 0x02, // Collection (Logical) 60
> 0x75, 0x08, // Report Size (8) 62
> 0x95, 0x07, // **Report Count (7)** 64
> 0x46, 0xff, 0x00, // Physical Maximum (255) 66
> 0x26, 0xff, 0x00, // Logical Maximum (255) 69
> 0x09, 0x02, // Usage (Vendor Usage 2) 72
> 0x91, 0x02, // Output (Data,Var,Abs) 74
> 0x75, 0x08, // Report Size (8) 62
> 0x95, 0x04, // **Report Count (4)** 64
> 0x46, 0xff, 0x00, // Physical Maximum (255) 66
> 0x26, 0xff, 0x00, // Logical Maximum (255) 69
> 0x09, 0x03, // Usage (Vendor Usage 3) 72
> 0x91, 0x02, // Output (Data,Var,Abs) 74
> 0xc0, // End Collection 76
>
> Ok, it's a lot of "if", but still this output report is valid, and the
> test will fail. And if we call hid_validate_report(hdev,
> HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 1, 4), the validation will fail, but the heap
> overflow will appear again.
>
> Does it makes more sense?
Right, yeah, I understand what you meant here, but I guess my point
was, if there's something that uses <7, then the driver needs
adjustment too, beyond just the hid_validate_report() call, since it
would need to know to operate only on 4 instead of 7. My thinking was,
if such a thing is detected, it would need to identify which device it
was and fix both the bounds-checking, and the report-value-setting.
For example:
if (i_am_vendor_3()) {
hid_validate_report(hdev, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 1, 4);
} else {
hid_validate_report(hdev, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 1, 7);
}
...
value[0] = 0x00;
value[1] = (leds & 1) ? 0xff : 0x00;
value[2] = (leds & 2) ? 0xff : 0x00;
value[3] = (leds & 4) ? 0xff : 0x00;
if (!i_am_vendor_3()) {
value[4] = (leds & 8) ? 0xff : 0x00;
value[5] = 0x00;
value[6] = 0x00;
}
But actually, the logic would be id or usage based, but still, it
seems to me that the hid_validate_report() call must match the actual
value array assignments.
-Kees
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> +
>>>> buzz = kzalloc(sizeof(*buzz), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> if (!buzz) {
>>>> hid_err(hdev, "Insufficient memory, cannot allocate driver data\n");
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jiri Kosina
>>>> SUSE Labs
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kees Cook
>> Chrome OS Security
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
