Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:14:18 +0100
From:   "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
Cc:     Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org" <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@nxp.com>,
        Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
        Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] bus: fsl-mc: add fsl-mc userspace support
Message-ID: <20181121081418.GD8162@kroah.com>
References: <1542728371-6972-1-git-send-email-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
 <1542728371-6972-3-git-send-email-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
 <20181120164850.GC27531@kroah.com>
 <VI1PR0402MB2800989D7FB9856EA9D2A083E0D90@VI1PR0402MB2800.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0402MB2800989D7FB9856EA9D2A083E0D90@VI1PR0402MB2800.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 05:59:26PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > > +static int fsl_mc_uapi_send_command(unsigned long arg,
> > > +				    struct fsl_mc_io *mc_io)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct fsl_mc_command mc_cmd;
> > > +	int error;
> > > +
> > > +	error = copy_from_user(&mc_cmd, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(mc_cmd));
> > > +	if (error)
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > > +	error = mc_send_command(mc_io, &mc_cmd);
> > > +	if (error)
> > > +		return error;
> > > +
> > > +	error = copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &mc_cmd, sizeof(mc_cmd));
> > > +	if (error)
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > I know you said that "the firmware will properly verify the command"
> > already, but given that I used to be a firmware developer a long time ago, I can
> > almost guarantee that this will cause problems in the future.
> > 
> > Want to make a friendly bet about this?
> > 
> > What is the odds that your firmware api/interface has been properly fuzzed such
> > that all possible combinations of bad commands will really not do horrible things
> > to the hardware/system?
> > 
> > Are you all willing to bet the system intregrity on this?  If so, ok, it's your systems
> > :)
> > 
> > Personally, I think you need to add a "known whitelist" and do some sort of
> > sanity checking here.
> > 
> 
> I can add a whitelist on the command ids that can be received from userspace but
> leave the parameter parsing to the firmware to process and interpret depending on the
> current system settings.
> 
> Would that be a viable option from your point of view?

That might be a good start.  Again, how well have you tested this
firmware interface can handle invalid data?  Are you willing to bet your
system integrity on it?  :)

thanks,

greg k-h