Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753370AbcD0IEA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 04:04:00 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:39198 "EHLO
	aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753225AbcD0IDw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 04:03:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:02:43 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>, Pengfei Wang <wpengfeinudt@gmail.com>,
        "security@kernel.org" <security@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Double-Fetch bug in Linux-4.5/drivers/scsi/aacraid/commctrl.c
Message-ID: <20160427080105.GI17913@mwanda>
References: <0484FFD3-4BAB-43B9-AD56-B4A098C3E8AE@gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jLYkLpMzvwm+mFBfoaNMqkTpXhrt_c7kJN0SvQVqJqyYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604270741260.2223@localhost6.localdomain6>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604270741260.2223@localhost6.localdomain6>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1339
Lines: 44

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 07:42:04AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Pengfei Wang <wpengfeinudt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I found this Double-Fetch bug in Linux-4.5/drivers/scsi/aacraid/commctrl.c
> > > when I was examining the source code.
> > 
> > Thanks for these reports! I wrote a coccinelle script to find these,
> > but it requires some manual checking. For what it's worth, it found
> > your report as well:
> > 
> > ./drivers/scsi/aacraid/commctrl.c:116:5-19: potentially dangerous
> > second copy_from_user()
> > 
> > So I should probably get this added to the coccicheck run... Maybe it
> > can get some clean up from Julia. :)
> 
> I looked a bit at the results, and didn't see anything obvious.  What is 
> the problem, exactly, and what would be a characteristic of a false 
> positive?
> 


	copy_from_user(dest, src, sizeof(dest));

	if (dest.extra > MAX_SIZE)
		return -EINVAL;

	copy_from_user(dest, src, sizeof(dest) + dest.extra);

	for (i = 0; i < dest.extra; i++) {
		dest.foo[i] = xxx;


We get dest.extra from the user, we verify the size, then we copy more
data from the user but that over writes dest.extra again.  We use
dest.extra a second time without checking that it's still <= MAX_SIZE.

regards,
dan carpenter