On Tuesday 16 December 2014 09:53:07 Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Peter Wu <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Malicious USB devices can send bogus reports smaller than the expected
> > buffer size. Ensure that the length is valid to avoid reading out of
> > bounds.
> >
> > For the old WTP, I do not have a HID descriptor so just check for the
> > minimum length in hidpp_raw_event (this can be changed to an inequality
> > later).
>
> Actually you have it :)
> All the DJ devices share the same report descriptors as they are
> provided by hid-logitech-dj :)
I see, I thought it was read from the hardware, but that probably
applies to the other interfaces. Looks like the report should have a
length of (16 + 12 * 2 + 8 + 8) / 8 = 7 bytes, correct?
> Anyway, the problem here would be with the bluetooth touchpad T651
> which sends its raw events over teh mouse (0x02) collection (hint:
> there is a "< 21" in wtp_raw_event :-P )
Huh, how can that be allowed if the mouse descriptor accept less? Does
the bluetooth layer pad the report somehow?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Wu <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Hi,
> >
> > If you know that the WTP report (ID 2) has a length of 2, then you can change
> > "<" to "!=" and remove the paragraph from the commit message.
>
> "<" should be kept for the reason above.
>
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Peter
> > ---
> > drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > index c917ab6..5bc6d80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > @@ -962,10 +962,24 @@ static int logi_dj_raw_event(struct hid_device *hdev,
> >
> > switch (data[0]) {
> > case REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT:
> > + if (size != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH) {
> > + dev_err(&hdev->dev, "DJ report of bad size (%d)", size);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > return logi_dj_dj_event(hdev, report, data, size);
> > case REPORT_ID_HIDPP_SHORT:
> > - /* intentional fallthrough */
> > + if (size != HIDPP_REPORT_SHORT_LENGTH) {
> > + dev_err(&hdev->dev,
> > + "Short HID++ report of bad size (%d)", size);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + return logi_dj_hidpp_event(hdev, report, data, size);
> > case REPORT_ID_HIDPP_LONG:
> > + if (size != HIDPP_REPORT_LONG_LENGTH) {
> > + dev_err(&hdev->dev,
> > + "Long HID++ report of bad size (%d)", size);
> > + return false;
> > + }
>
> This hunk is good to me.
>
> > return logi_dj_hidpp_event(hdev, report, data, size);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > index ae23dec..2315358 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > @@ -992,11 +992,17 @@ static int hidpp_raw_event(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_report *report,
> > return 1;
> > }
> > return hidpp_raw_hidpp_event(hidpp, data, size);
> > + case 0x02:
> > + if (size < 2) {
> > + hid_err(hdev, "Received HID report of bad size (%d)",
> > + size);
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > + if (hidpp->quirks & HIDPP_QUIRK_CLASS_WTP)
> > + return wtp_raw_event(hdev, data, size);
> > + return 1;
> > }
> >
> > - if (hidpp->quirks & HIDPP_QUIRK_CLASS_WTP)
> > - return wtp_raw_event(hdev, data, size);
>
> This one is OK, but I don't like it.
>
> wtp_raw_event also expects long hid++ reports, and I'd prefer having
> the raw_event() callback first checking on the generic hid++ reports,
> and then addressing the various subclasses of devices.
> After a better look at the code, it occurs that the actual code is
> already pretty messed up.
> wtp_raw_event() is called both in the generic hidpp_raw_event() and in
> the specific hidpp_raw_hidpp_event().
> This is IMO a design flaw and it should be fixed in a better way.
>
> I'd better have:
>
> - A check on the report size
> - A call to the specific hidpp_raw_hidpp_event()
> - if the previous does not return 1 (consumed event), then check on
> all subclasses and call their specific raw_event.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> If you agree, you can split the patch in 3, one for the -dj, one for
> the -hidpp checks, and one for the redesign. I'd be happy to make the
> redesign if you do not want to reshuffle it in a third patch.
wtp_raw_event got called earlier through the long HID++ report handler
(which returns, so it cannot be called twice?). It looked surprising at
first, so it makes sense to split it up. I'll send a V2 for this patch
(leaving the other ones in this bundle untouched).
Kind regards,
Peter
PS. I saw a mail on LKML from a maintainer who was not so happy with the
timing of patches. If my patch submissions are at the wrong moment,
please let me know.
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
> > -
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.1.3
--
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
