USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
(altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
instead of having every driver implement check manually.
For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
---
Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
@@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
+ if (driver->num_endpoints &&
+ intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
+
+ dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
+ intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
+ driver->num_endpoints);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
if (error)
return error;
diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
--- a/include/linux/usb.h
+++ b/include/linux/usb.h
@@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
* @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
* Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
* or your driver's probe function will never get called.
+ * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
+ * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
+ * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
+ * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
+ * performed.
* @dynids: used internally to hold the list of dynamically added device
* ids for this driver.
* @drvwrap: Driver-model core structure wrapper.
@@ -1099,6 +1104,8 @@ struct usb_driver {
const struct usb_device_id *id_table;
+ unsigned int num_endpoints;
+
struct usb_dynids dynids;
struct usbdrv_wrap drvwrap;
unsigned int no_dynamic_id:1;
--
2.6.0.rc2.230.g3dd15c0
--
Dmitry
Hi,
Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> writes:
> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>
> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>
> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>
> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>
> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
this part of the check is pointless, right ?
> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
bNumEndpoints will never be less than 0 and if it is, we're gonna have
issues elsewhere anyway.
--
balbi
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>
> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>
> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>
> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>
> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
> +
Empty line :(
> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
> + driver->num_endpoints);
What can a user do with this?
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
> if (error)
> return error;
> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
> + * performed.
I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
is crashing without this?
It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it. How many
drivers do you have that is going to care? Why is this suddenly a new
thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:39:43PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> writes:
> > USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
> > access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
> > (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
> > altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
> > instead of having every driver implement check manually.
> >
> > For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
> > number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
> > expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
> >
> > Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
> > tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
> > properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
> > plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
> >
> > drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
> > include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> > index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> > @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
> >
> > dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
> >
> > + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
>
> this part of the check is pointless, right ?
>
> > + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
>
> bNumEndpoints will never be less than 0 and if it is, we're gonna have
> issues elsewhere anyway.
Fair enough, I'll drop it.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
>> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
>> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
>> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
>> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>>
>> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
>> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
>> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>>
>> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
>> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
>> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
>> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>>
>> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
>> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
>> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>>
>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>>
>> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
>> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
>> +
>
> Empty line :(
>
>> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
>> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
>> + driver->num_endpoints);
>
> What can a user do with this?
Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
>
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
>> if (error)
>> return error;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
>> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
>> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
>> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
>> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
>> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
>> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
>> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
>> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
>> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
>> + * performed.
>
> I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
> of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
> is crashing without this?
The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
>
> It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
to do so).
> How many
> drivers do you have that is going to care?
I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
we have many that do check explicitly.
> Why is this suddenly a new
> thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
> >> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
> >> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
> >> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
> >> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
> >>
> >> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
> >> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
> >> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
> >> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
> >> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
> >> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
> >>
> >> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
> >>
> >> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
> >>
> >> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
> >> +
> >
> > Empty line :(
> >
> >> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
> >> + driver->num_endpoints);
> >
> > What can a user do with this?
>
> Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
>
> >
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
> >> if (error)
> >> return error;
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
> >> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
> >> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
> >> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
> >> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
> >> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
> >> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
> >> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
> >> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
> >> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
> >> + * performed.
> >
> > I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
> > of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
> > is crashing without this?
>
> The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
> intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
> intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
The USB core does that? Or just a driver, and if it's just a driver, we
should fix that in the driver itself as there are lots of other
validation checks the drivers should be doing becides just this one
about endpoints, sizes, and directions that we can't catch in the core.
> > It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
>
> Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
> efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
> to do so).
ok, fair enough, but it's just one of many things they should be
checking, this doesn't provide all that much "protection".
> > How many
> > drivers do you have that is going to care?
>
> I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
> we have many that do check explicitly.
>
> > Why is this suddenly a new
> > thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
>
> We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
> if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
> have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
There's lots of things we can't "rely on", and we have never been able
to rely on, but this is going to require we touch every USB driver to
make those changes, this one change isn't going to really do all that
much to help out with that.
Every USB driver _should_ be having a loop over all endpoints to find
what they need/expect, and if it isn't there, then it needs to abort.
Just checking the number of endpoints isn't ok, so I really think this
isn't going to help all that much in the end...
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> >> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
>> >> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
>> >> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
>> >> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
>> >> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>> >>
>> >> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
>> >> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
>> >> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>> >>
>> >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
>> >> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
>> >> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
>> >> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>> >>
>> >> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
>> >> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
>> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> >> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>> >> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>> >>
>> >> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>> >>
>> >> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Empty line :(
>> >
>> >> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
>> >> + driver->num_endpoints);
>> >
>> > What can a user do with this?
>>
>> Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
>>
>> >
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
>> >> if (error)
>> >> return error;
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
>> >> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
>> >> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
>> >> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
>> >> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
>> >> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
>> >> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
>> >> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
>> >> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
>> >> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
>> >> + * performed.
>> >
>> > I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
>> > of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
>> > is crashing without this?
>>
>> The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
>> intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
>> intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
>
> The USB core does that? Or just a driver, and if it's just a driver, we
> should fix that in the driver itself as there are lots of other
> validation checks the drivers should be doing becides just this one
> about endpoints, sizes, and directions that we can't catch in the core.
>
>> > It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
>>
>> Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
>> efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
>> to do so).
>
> ok, fair enough, but it's just one of many things they should be
> checking, this doesn't provide all that much "protection".
>
>> > How many
>> > drivers do you have that is going to care?
>>
>> I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
>> we have many that do check explicitly.
>>
>> > Why is this suddenly a new
>> > thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
>>
>> We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
>> if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
>> have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
>
> There's lots of things we can't "rely on", and we have never been able
> to rely on, but this is going to require we touch every USB driver to
> make those changes, this one change isn't going to really do all that
> much to help out with that.
>
> Every USB driver _should_ be having a loop over all endpoints to find
> what they need/expect, and if it isn't there, then it needs to abort.
> Just checking the number of endpoints isn't ok, so I really think this
> isn't going to help all that much in the end...
OK, fair enough. Maybe what is missing is something like:
ep = usb_locate_endpoint(altsetting, type, direction);
if (!ep) {
...
return -EINVAL;
}
that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that blindly
grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
correct types.
Let's consider this patch dropped.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:47:18PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> >> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
> >> >> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
> >> >> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
> >> >> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
> >> >> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
> >> >>
> >> >> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
> >> >> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
> >> >> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
> >> >>
> >> >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
> >> >> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
> >> >> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
> >> >> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
> >> >>
> >> >> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> >> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
> >> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> >> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
> >> >> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
> >> >>
> >> >> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
> >> >>
> >> >> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
> >> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
> >> >> +
> >> >
> >> > Empty line :(
> >> >
> >> >> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
> >> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
> >> >> + driver->num_endpoints);
> >> >
> >> > What can a user do with this?
> >>
> >> Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> +
> >> >> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
> >> >> if (error)
> >> >> return error;
> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
> >> >> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
> >> >> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
> >> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
> >> >> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
> >> >> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
> >> >> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
> >> >> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
> >> >> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
> >> >> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
> >> >> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
> >> >> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
> >> >> + * performed.
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
> >> > of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
> >> > is crashing without this?
> >>
> >> The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
> >> intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
> >> intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
> >
> > The USB core does that? Or just a driver, and if it's just a driver, we
> > should fix that in the driver itself as there are lots of other
> > validation checks the drivers should be doing becides just this one
> > about endpoints, sizes, and directions that we can't catch in the core.
> >
> >> > It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
> >>
> >> Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
> >> efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
> >> to do so).
> >
> > ok, fair enough, but it's just one of many things they should be
> > checking, this doesn't provide all that much "protection".
> >
> >> > How many
> >> > drivers do you have that is going to care?
> >>
> >> I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
> >> we have many that do check explicitly.
> >>
> >> > Why is this suddenly a new
> >> > thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
> >>
> >> We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
> >> if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
> >> have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
> >
> > There's lots of things we can't "rely on", and we have never been able
> > to rely on, but this is going to require we touch every USB driver to
> > make those changes, this one change isn't going to really do all that
> > much to help out with that.
> >
> > Every USB driver _should_ be having a loop over all endpoints to find
> > what they need/expect, and if it isn't there, then it needs to abort.
> > Just checking the number of endpoints isn't ok, so I really think this
> > isn't going to help all that much in the end...
>
> OK, fair enough. Maybe what is missing is something like:
>
> ep = usb_locate_endpoint(altsetting, type, direction);
> if (!ep) {
> ...
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
> open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that blindly
> grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
> correct types.
Yes, that would work for one single type of endpoint, but lots of
drivers need/have 2 of the same type/direction, so what would this
function do then? Error out? Hm, that might work, and it would reduce
a bunch of common code, care to make up a patch for that?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:09 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
> > open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that
> blindly
> > grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
> > correct types.
>
> Yes, that would work for one single type of endpoint, but lots of
> drivers need/have 2 of the same type/direction, so what would this
> function do then? Error out? Hm, that might work, and it would
> reduce
> a bunch of common code, care to make up a patch for that?
Hi,
in that case let us go the whole way. Give drivers a way to describe
what they need that covers all possibilities up to exactly telling the
core what it expects and in which order and numbers.
Actually that would be better in the interface matching code path.
Regards
Oliver
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:09 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
> > > open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that
> > blindly
> > > grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
> > > correct types.
> >
> > Yes, that would work for one single type of endpoint, but lots of
> > drivers need/have 2 of the same type/direction, so what would this
> > function do then? Error out? Hm, that might work, and it would
> > reduce
> > a bunch of common code, care to make up a patch for that?
>
> Hi,
>
> in that case let us go the whole way. Give drivers a way to describe
> what they need that covers all possibilities up to exactly telling the
> core what it expects and in which order and numbers.
> Actually that would be better in the interface matching code path.
Trying to describe a static, or variable, number of endpoints, for each
interface and endpoint type, and then add that information to the
usb_device_id structure and common macros, and then touch all users of
those macros, might be a bit too much work to do here... :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> >> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
>>> >> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
>>> >> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
>>> >> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
>>> >> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>>> >>
>>> >> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
>>> >> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
>>> >> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>>> >>
>>> >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
>>> >> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
>>> >> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
>>> >> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>>> >>
>>> >> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> >> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
>>> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>> >> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
>>> >> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>> >> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>>> >>
>>> >> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>>> >>
>>> >> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
>>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
>>> >> +
>>> >
>>> > Empty line :(
>>> >
>>> >> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
>>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
>>> >> + driver->num_endpoints);
>>> >
>>> > What can a user do with this?
>>>
>>> Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>>> >> + }
>>> >> +
>>> >> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
>>> >> if (error)
>>> >> return error;
>>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
>>> >> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
>>> >> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
>>> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
>>> >> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
>>> >> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
>>> >> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
>>> >> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
>>> >> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
>>> >> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
>>> >> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
>>> >> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
>>> >> + * performed.
>>> >
>>> > I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
>>> > of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
>>> > is crashing without this?
>>>
>>> The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
>>> intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
>>> intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
>>
>> The USB core does that? Or just a driver, and if it's just a driver, we
>> should fix that in the driver itself as there are lots of other
>> validation checks the drivers should be doing becides just this one
>> about endpoints, sizes, and directions that we can't catch in the core.
>>
>>> > It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
>>>
>>> Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
>>> efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
>>> to do so).
>>
>> ok, fair enough, but it's just one of many things they should be
>> checking, this doesn't provide all that much "protection".
>>
>>> > How many
>>> > drivers do you have that is going to care?
>>>
>>> I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
>>> we have many that do check explicitly.
>>>
>>> > Why is this suddenly a new
>>> > thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
>>>
>>> We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
>>> if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
>>> have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
>>
>> There's lots of things we can't "rely on", and we have never been able
>> to rely on, but this is going to require we touch every USB driver to
>> make those changes, this one change isn't going to really do all that
>> much to help out with that.
>>
>> Every USB driver _should_ be having a loop over all endpoints to find
>> what they need/expect, and if it isn't there, then it needs to abort.
>> Just checking the number of endpoints isn't ok, so I really think this
>> isn't going to help all that much in the end...
>
> OK, fair enough. Maybe what is missing is something like:
>
> ep = usb_locate_endpoint(altsetting, type, direction);
> if (!ep) {
> ...
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
> open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that blindly
> grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
> correct types.
>
> Let's consider this patch dropped.
Since you're dropping this patch, are you going to take the patch
Vladis originally sent for the aiptek driver? I'm not objecting to
fixing this in a broader sense, but it might be good to get existing
fixes in before the whole rework is done.
josh
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Josh Boyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> >> USB interface drivers need to check number of endpoints before trying to
>>>> >> access/use them. Quite a few drivers only use the default setting
>>>> >> (altsetting 0), so let's allow them to declare number of endpoints in
>>>> >> altsetting 0 they require to operate and have USB core check it for us
>>>> >> instead of having every driver implement check manually.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> For compatibility, if driver does not specify number of endpoints (i.e.
>>>> >> number of endpoints is left at 0) we bypass the check in USB core and
>>>> >> expect the driver perform necessary checks on its own.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Acked-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
>>>> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>>>> >> ---
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Greg, if the patch is reasonable I wonder if I can take it through my
>>>> >> tree, as I have a few drivers that do not check number of endpoints
>>>> >> properly and will crash the kernel when specially crafted device is
>>>> >> plugged in, as reported by Vladis Dronov.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> drivers/usb/core/driver.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>> >> include/linux/usb.h | 7 +++++++
>>>> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>>> >> index 6b5063e..d9f680d 100644
>>>> >> --- a/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>>> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/driver.c
>>>> >> @@ -306,6 +306,15 @@ static int usb_probe_interface(struct device *dev)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> dev_dbg(dev, "%s - got id\n", __func__);
>>>> >>
>>>> >> + if (driver->num_endpoints &&
>>>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints < driver->num_endpoints) {
>>>> >> +
>>>> >
>>>> > Empty line :(
>>>> >
>>>> >> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough endpoints %d (want %d)\n",
>>>> >> + intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints,
>>>> >> + driver->num_endpoints);
>>>> >
>>>> > What can a user do with this?
>>>>
>>>> Report on the lists or throw such device into a bin.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> >> + }
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> error = usb_autoresume_device(udev);
>>>> >> if (error)
>>>> >> return error;
>>>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb.h b/include/linux/usb.h
>>>> >> index 447fe29..93f8dfc 100644
>>>> >> --- a/include/linux/usb.h
>>>> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb.h
>>>> >> @@ -1051,6 +1051,11 @@ struct usbdrv_wrap {
>>>> >> * @id_table: USB drivers use ID table to support hotplugging.
>>>> >> * Export this with MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb,...). This must be set
>>>> >> * or your driver's probe function will never get called.
>>>> >> + * @num_endpoints: Number of endpoints that should be present in default
>>>> >> + * setting (altsetting 0) the driver needs to operate properly.
>>>> >> + * The probe will be aborted if actual number of endpoints is less
>>>> >> + * than what the driver specified here. 0 means no check should be
>>>> >> + * performed.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't understand, a driver can do whatever it wants with the endpoints
>>>> > of the interface, why do we need to check/know this ahead of time? What
>>>> > is crashing without this?
>>>>
>>>> The kernel because some drivers do not verify that
>>>> intf->altsetting[0].desc.bNumEndpoints >= 1 before referencing
>>>> intf->altsetting[0].endpoints[0].
>>>
>>> The USB core does that? Or just a driver, and if it's just a driver, we
>>> should fix that in the driver itself as there are lots of other
>>> validation checks the drivers should be doing becides just this one
>>> about endpoints, sizes, and directions that we can't catch in the core.
>>>
>>>> > It's up to the driver to check this, if it cares about it.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of duplicating the check in almost every driver is it more
>>>> efficient to allow USB core check it for them (if driver requests it
>>>> to do so).
>>>
>>> ok, fair enough, but it's just one of many things they should be
>>> checking, this doesn't provide all that much "protection".
>>>
>>>> > How many
>>>> > drivers do you have that is going to care?
>>>>
>>>> I saw at least 3 that did not check, that's from cursory glance. Plus
>>>> we have many that do check explicitly.
>>>>
>>>> > Why is this suddenly a new
>>>> > thing that we haven't run into in the past 15+ years?
>>>>
>>>> We are less trusting now. Before we/some of the drivers believed that
>>>> if device has VID/PID that they recognize the rest of descriptors will
>>>> have the data we expect, but we can't rely on this anymore.
>>>
>>> There's lots of things we can't "rely on", and we have never been able
>>> to rely on, but this is going to require we touch every USB driver to
>>> make those changes, this one change isn't going to really do all that
>>> much to help out with that.
>>>
>>> Every USB driver _should_ be having a loop over all endpoints to find
>>> what they need/expect, and if it isn't there, then it needs to abort.
>>> Just checking the number of endpoints isn't ok, so I really think this
>>> isn't going to help all that much in the end...
>>
>> OK, fair enough. Maybe what is missing is something like:
>>
>> ep = usb_locate_endpoint(altsetting, type, direction);
>> if (!ep) {
>> ...
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to
>> open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that blindly
>> grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have
>> correct types.
>>
>> Let's consider this patch dropped.
>
> Since you're dropping this patch, are you going to take the patch
> Vladis originally sent for the aiptek driver? I'm not objecting to
> fixing this in a broader sense, but it might be good to get existing
> fixes in before the whole rework is done.
Yeah, I'd better.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry