drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
It appears that there are some buffer overflows in EVT_TRANSACTION.
This happens because the length parameters that are passed to memcpy
come directly from skb->data and are not guarded in any way.
Signed-off-by: Jordy Zomer <jordy@pwning.systems>
---
drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c b/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c
index 7764b1a4c3cf..cdb59ddff4e8 100644
--- a/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c
+++ b/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c
@@ -335,6 +335,11 @@ static int st_nci_hci_connectivity_event_received(struct nci_dev *ndev,
return -ENOMEM;
transaction->aid_len = skb->data[1];
+
+ /* Checking if the length of the AID is valid */
+ if (transaction->aid_len > sizeof(transaction->aid))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
memcpy(transaction->aid, &skb->data[2], transaction->aid_len);
/* Check next byte is PARAMETERS tag (82) */
@@ -343,6 +348,11 @@ static int st_nci_hci_connectivity_event_received(struct nci_dev *ndev,
return -EPROTO;
transaction->params_len = skb->data[transaction->aid_len + 3];
+
+ /* Total size is allocated (skb->len - 2) minus fixed array members */
+ if (transaction->params_len > ((skb->len - 2) - sizeof(struct nfc_evt_transaction)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
memcpy(transaction->params, skb->data +
transaction->aid_len + 4, transaction->params_len);
--
2.27.0
On 11/01/2022 17:45, Jordy Zomer wrote: > It appears that there are some buffer overflows in EVT_TRANSACTION. > This happens because the length parameters that are passed to memcpy > come directly from skb->data and are not guarded in any way. > > Signed-off-by: Jordy Zomer <jordy@pwning.systems> > --- > drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > Looks ok. Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:45:43 +0100 Jordy Zomer wrote: > It appears that there are some buffer overflows in EVT_TRANSACTION. > This happens because the length parameters that are passed to memcpy > come directly from skb->data and are not guarded in any way. > > Signed-off-by: Jordy Zomer <jordy@pwning.systems> This patch with more context: > diff --git a/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c b/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c > index 7764b1a4c3cf..cdb59ddff4e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c > +++ b/drivers/nfc/st-nci/se.c > @@ -333,18 +333,28 @@ static int st_nci_hci_connectivity_event_received(struct nci_dev *ndev, > transaction = devm_kzalloc(dev, skb->len - 2, GFP_KERNEL); What checks skb->len > 2 ? > if (!transaction) > return -ENOMEM; Leaks skb ? > transaction->aid_len = skb->data[1]; > + > + /* Checking if the length of the AID is valid */ > + if (transaction->aid_len > sizeof(transaction->aid)) > + return -EINVAL; > > memcpy(transaction->aid, &skb->data[2], transaction->aid_len); What checks skb->len > 2 + transaction->aid_len ? > /* Check next byte is PARAMETERS tag (82) */ > if (skb->data[transaction->aid_len + 2] != .. make that skb->len > 2 + transaction->aid_len + 1 > NFC_EVT_TRANSACTION_PARAMS_TAG) > return -EPROTO; Leaks skb ? (btw devm_kmalloc() in message processing could probably as well be counted as leak unless something guarantees attacker can't generate infinite messages of this type) > transaction->params_len = skb->data[transaction->aid_len + 3]; .. skb->len > 2 + transaction->aid_len + 1 + 1 > + /* Total size is allocated (skb->len - 2) minus fixed array members */ > + if (transaction->params_len > ((skb->len - 2) - sizeof(struct nfc_evt_transaction))) So this check makes sure we don't overflow transaction->params, right? Again, does skb->len not have to be validated as well? > + return -EINVAL; > + > memcpy(transaction->params, skb->data + > transaction->aid_len + 4, transaction->params_len); > > r = nfc_se_transaction(ndev->nfc_dev, host, transaction); > break;
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.