Hi Jia-Ju,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 03:33:11PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> On 2020/8/30 1:16, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 02:10:20PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> The value av7110->debi_virt is stored in DMA memory, and it is assigned
> >>> to data, and thus data[0] can be modified at any time by malicious
> >>> hardware. In this case, "if (data[0] < 2)" can be passed, but then
> >>> data[0] can be changed into a large number, which may cause buffer
> >>> overflow when the code "av7110->ci_slot[data[0]]" is used.
> >>>
> >>> To fix this possible bug, data[0] is assigned to a local variable, which
> >>> replaces the use of data[0].
> >> I'm pretty sure hardware capable of manipulating memory can work
> >> around any such checks, but...
> >>
> >>> +++ b/drivers/media/pci/ttpci/av7110.c
> >>> @@ -424,14 +424,15 @@ static void debiirq(unsigned long cookie)
> >>> case DATA_CI_GET:
> >>> {
> >>> u8 *data = av7110->debi_virt;
> >>> + u8 data_0 = data[0];
> >>>
> >>> - if ((data[0] < 2) && data[2] == 0xff) {
> >>> + if (data_0 < 2 && data[2] == 0xff) {
> >>> int flags = 0;
> >>> if (data[5] > 0)
> >>> flags |= CA_CI_MODULE_PRESENT;
> >>> if (data[5] > 5)
> >>> flags |= CA_CI_MODULE_READY;
> >>> - av7110->ci_slot[data[0]].flags = flags;
> >>> + av7110->ci_slot[data_0].flags = flags;
> >>
> >> This does not even do what it says. Compiler is still free to access
> >> data[0] multiple times. It needs READ_ONCE() to be effective.
> >
> > Yes, it seems quite dubious to me. If we *really* want to guard against
> > rogue hardware here, the whole DMA buffer should be copied. I don't
> > think it's worth it, a rogue PCI device can do much more harm.
>
> From the original driver code, data[0] is considered to be bad and thus
> it should be checked, because the content of the DMA buffer may be
> problematic.
>
> Based on this consideration, data[0] can be also modified to bypass the
> check, and thus its value should be copied to a local variable for the
> check and use.
What makes you think the hardware would do that ?
> I agree with Pavel that the compiler optimization may drop the copying
> operation, and thus READ_ONCE() should be used here.
> I will submit a v2 patch soon.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
