Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] ima-evm-utils: Make sure sig buffer is always MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE

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

 



Mimi,

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 07:08:12AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 09:59 +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 05:42:18PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 16:56 +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > > > Fix off-by-one error of the output buffer passed to sign_hash().
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Chikunov <vt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  src/evmctl.c | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/src/evmctl.c b/src/evmctl.c
> > > > index 15a7226..03f41fe 100644
> > > > --- a/src/evmctl.c
> > > > +++ b/src/evmctl.c
> > > > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static int calc_evm_hash(const char *file, unsigned char *hash)
> > > >  static int sign_evm(const char *file, const char *key)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	unsigned char hash[MAX_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > > > -	unsigned char sig[MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE];
> > > > +	unsigned char sig[MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE + 1];
> > > >  	int len, err;
> > > > 
> > > >  	len = calc_evm_hash(file, hash);
> > > > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static int sign_evm(const char *file, const char *key)
> > > >  		return len;
> > > > 
> > > >  	len = sign_hash(params.hash_algo, hash, len, key, NULL, sig + 1);
> > > > -	assert(len < sizeof(sig));
> > > > +	assert(len <= MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE);
> > > >  	if (len <= 1)
> > > >  		return len;
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > A similar problem occurs in sign_ima.  Without these changes
> > > sign_hash() succeeds, returning a length of 520 for
> > > sha256/streebog256. 
> > 
> > I will add it. Also, I found more similar errors and will fix them together.
> 
> The first byte of sig is reserved for the type of signature.  The
> remaining buffer is for the signature itself.  The existing
> "assert(len < sizeof(sig))" is therefore correct.  The sig size being
> returned is less than 1023, so why is this change needed?

Well, it looked more straightforward to check explicit
MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE instead of relying on that '<' accounts for
that additional byte.

Main fix is of course this:

> > > > -       unsigned char sig[MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE];
> > > > +       unsigned char sig[MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE + 1];

I will revert all that `assert(len <= MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE)` back to
`assert(len < sizeof(sig))`.

Thanks,




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux