On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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);
> }
>
hmm... not really. In my case, I supposed the device presented both vendor collections, one after the other. So the test could be:
hid_validate_report(hdev, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 1, 7);
if (I_contain_vendor_3())
hid_validate_report(hdev, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, 0, 2, 4);
But this will not work if the small report is in front of the large one.
I can propose another implementation of hid_validate_report() which will be covering this case:
instead of checking a range of fields, just check the specific field index used later:
+struct hid_report *hid_validate_report(struct hid_device *hid,
+ unsigned int type, unsigned int id,
+ unsigned int field_index,
+ unsigned int report_counts)
+{
+ struct hid_report *report;
+
+ if (type > HID_FEATURE_REPORT) {
+ hid_err(hid, "invalid HID report %u\n", type);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ report = hid->report_enum[type].report_id_hash[id];
+ if (!report) {
+ hid_err(hid, "missing %s %u\n", hid_report_names[type], id);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ if (report->maxfield <= field_index) {
+ hid_err(hid, "not enough fields in %s %u\n",
+ hid_report_names[type], id);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ if (report->field[field_index]->report_count < report_counts) {
+ hid_err(hid, "not enough values in %s %u field #%d\n",
+ hid_report_names[type], id, field_index);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ return report;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hid_validate_report);
Only hid-zpff and hid-lenovo-tpkbd are checking for more than one report, and we can afford a for loop on the field indexes for them.
Cheers,
Benjamin
> ...
>
> 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
