2023-09-29 15:59:42

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH][next] ALSA: 6fire: Fix undefined behavior bug in struct comm_runtime

`struct urb` is a flexible structure, which means that it contains a
flexible-array member at the bottom. This could potentially lead to an
overwrite of the objects following `receiver` in `struct comm_runtime`,
among them some function pointers.

Fix this by placing the declaration of object `receiver` at the end of
`struct comm_runtime`.

Fixes: ddb6b5a96437 ("ALSA: 6fire: fix DMA issues with URB transfer_buffer usage")
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
sound/usb/6fire/comm.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h b/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
index 2447d7ecf179..ee81572a4eec 100644
--- a/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
+++ b/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ enum /* settings for comm */
struct comm_runtime {
struct sfire_chip *chip;

- struct urb receiver;
u8 *receiver_buffer;

u8 serial; /* urb serial */
@@ -30,6 +29,7 @@ struct comm_runtime {
int (*write8)(struct comm_runtime *rt, u8 request, u8 reg, u8 value);
int (*write16)(struct comm_runtime *rt, u8 request, u8 reg,
u8 vh, u8 vl);
+ struct urb receiver;
};

int usb6fire_comm_init(struct sfire_chip *chip);
--
2.34.1


2023-09-29 17:31:36

by Kees Cook

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: 6fire: Fix undefined behavior bug in struct comm_runtime

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 05:59:22PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> `struct urb` is a flexible structure, which means that it contains a
> flexible-array member at the bottom. This could potentially lead to an
> overwrite of the objects following `receiver` in `struct comm_runtime`,
> among them some function pointers.
>
> Fix this by placing the declaration of object `receiver` at the end of
> `struct comm_runtime`.
>
> Fixes: ddb6b5a96437 ("ALSA: 6fire: fix DMA issues with URB transfer_buffer usage")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>

Should these mention -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end ?

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>

--
Kees Cook

2023-10-01 06:51:51

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: 6fire: Fix undefined behavior bug in struct comm_runtime



On 9/29/23 19:26, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 05:59:22PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> `struct urb` is a flexible structure, which means that it contains a
>> flexible-array member at the bottom. This could potentially lead to an
>> overwrite of the objects following `receiver` in `struct comm_runtime`,
>> among them some function pointers.
>>
>> Fix this by placing the declaration of object `receiver` at the end of
>> `struct comm_runtime`.
>>
>> Fixes: ddb6b5a96437 ("ALSA: 6fire: fix DMA issues with URB transfer_buffer usage")
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>
> Should these mention -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end ?

Probably, yes. I wasn't sure about mentioning it because it's not been released yet.

>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
>

Thanks!
--
Gustavo

2023-10-06 09:00:05

by Takashi Iwai

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: 6fire: Fix undefined behavior bug in struct comm_runtime

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:59:22 +0200,
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> `struct urb` is a flexible structure, which means that it contains a
> flexible-array member at the bottom. This could potentially lead to an
> overwrite of the objects following `receiver` in `struct comm_runtime`,
> among them some function pointers.
>
> Fix this by placing the declaration of object `receiver` at the end of
> `struct comm_runtime`.
>
> Fixes: ddb6b5a96437 ("ALSA: 6fire: fix DMA issues with URB transfer_buffer usage")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>

Sorry for the late reply, as I've been (still) off since the last
week.

Through a quick glance, I don't mind much to apply this, but I still
wonder how this "fixes" anything. Does it silence compiler warnings
or such?

Certainly struct urb *may* have flex array, but in this case, it's
clearly not used, so it's fixed-size. And, even if we shuffle the
member to put to the last, it doesn't fix anything automagically
alone. If a flex array were used, it still leads to memory corruption
unless we implement the allocation properly. So I find the patch
description is somehow misleading.


thanks,

Takashi

> ---
> sound/usb/6fire/comm.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h b/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
> index 2447d7ecf179..ee81572a4eec 100644
> --- a/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
> +++ b/sound/usb/6fire/comm.h
> @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ enum /* settings for comm */
> struct comm_runtime {
> struct sfire_chip *chip;
>
> - struct urb receiver;
> u8 *receiver_buffer;
>
> u8 serial; /* urb serial */
> @@ -30,6 +29,7 @@ struct comm_runtime {
> int (*write8)(struct comm_runtime *rt, u8 request, u8 reg, u8 value);
> int (*write16)(struct comm_runtime *rt, u8 request, u8 reg,
> u8 vh, u8 vl);
> + struct urb receiver;
> };
>
> int usb6fire_comm_init(struct sfire_chip *chip);
> --
> 2.34.1
>