diff mbox series

[v2] nfc: st21nfca: Fix potential buffer overflows in EVT_TRANSACTION

Message ID 20211118070426.2739243-1-jordy@pwning.systems (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series [v2] nfc: st21nfca: Fix potential buffer overflows in EVT_TRANSACTION | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix warning Target tree name not specified in the subject
netdev/cover_letter success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 4 of 4 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 100 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/tree_selection success Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply

Commit Message

Jordy Zomer Nov. 18, 2021, 7:04 a.m. UTC
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.

It would be nice if someone can review and test this patch because
I don't own the hardware :)

EDIT: Changed the comment styles and removed double newlines

Signed-off-by: Jordy Zomer <jordy@pwning.systems>
---
 drivers/nfc/st21nfca/se.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski Nov. 18, 2021, 7:40 a.m. UTC | #1
On 18/11/2021 08:04, 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.
> 
> It would be nice if someone can review and test this patch because
> I don't own the hardware :)
> 
> EDIT: Changed the comment styles and removed double newlines
> 

Same comments apply. :)


Best regards,
Krzysztof
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/se.c b/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/se.c
index a43fc4117fa5..5e036768b2a1 100644
--- a/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/se.c
+++ b/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/se.c
@@ -316,6 +316,11 @@  int st21nfca_connectivity_event_received(struct nfc_hci_dev *hdev, u8 host,
 			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);
 
@@ -325,6 +330,16 @@  int st21nfca_connectivity_event_received(struct nfc_hci_dev *hdev, u8 host,
 			return -EPROTO;
 
 		transaction->params_len = skb->data[transaction->aid_len + 3];
+
+		/*
+		 * check if the length of the parameters is valid
+		 * we can't use sizeof(transaction->params) because it's
+		 * a flexible array member so we have to check if params_len
+		 * is bigger than the space allocated for the array
+		 */
+		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);