Re: [PATCH 04/14] HID: sony: validate HID output report details
From: Benjamin Tissoires <hidden>
Date: 2013-08-29 14:50:05
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Benjamin Tissoires [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Jiri Kosina [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Kees Cook <redacted> 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 <redacted> Cc: stable@kernel.org --- 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? Cheers, Benjamin
quoted
quoted
+ 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html-- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security