Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 04:39:38 -0400
From:   Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v1] usbhid: Fix slab-out-of-bounds
 write in hiddev_ioctl_usage()
Message-ID: <20200721083938.GA8005@PWN>
References: <20200718231218.170730-1-yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
 <20200720115400.GI2549@kadam>
 <20200720121257.GJ2571@kadam>
 <20200720191656.GA3366@PWN>
 <20200721071637.GK2571@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200721071637.GK2571@kadam>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:16:37AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> For some reason the reply-to header on your email is bogus:
> 
> Reply-To: 20200720121257.GJ2571@kadam
> 
> "kadam" is a system on my home network.

Ah...I thought `Reply-To` and `In-Reply-To` are the same thing...Sorry
for the beginner's mistake...

> Yeah.  And in the caller it does:
> 
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c
>    297          if (!parser->local.usage_index) /* Ignore padding fields */
>    298                  return 0;
>    299  
>    300          usages = max_t(unsigned, parser->local.usage_index,
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    301                                   parser->global.report_count);
>    302  
>    303          field = hid_register_field(report, usages, parser->global.report_count);
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So ->usages is always greater or equal to ->global.report_count.
> 
>    304          if (!field)
>    305                  return 0;
>    306  
>    307          field->physical = hid_lookup_collection(parser, HID_COLLECTION_PHYSICAL);
> 
> > 
> > Here, `values` equals to `global.report_count`. See how it is being
> > called:
> > 
> > drivers/hid/hid-core.c:303:
> > 
> >         field = hid_register_field(report, usages, parser->global.report_count);
> > 
> > In hid_open_report(), `global.report_count` can be set by calling
> > hid_parser_global().
> > 
> > However, the syzkaller reproducer made hid_open_report() to call
> > hid_parser_main() __before__ `global.report_count` is properly set. It's
> > zero. So hid_register_field() allocated `field` with `values` equals to
> > zero - No room for value[] at all. I believe this caused the bug.
> 
> I don't know if zero is valid or not.  I suspect it is valid.  We have
> no reason to think that it's invalid.

I see, I will stop guessing and wait for the maintainers' feedback.

Thank you,

Peilin Ye