From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E22C43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6E321D7F for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726645AbfKLROP (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:14:15 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:7336 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727508AbfKLROJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:14:09 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xACGvhSc143050 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:14:09 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w7yxujnru-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:14:09 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:07 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:03 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xACHE3bi61603880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:03 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D26CA4040; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52906A404D; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.194.252]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: avoid appraise error for hash calc interrupt From: Mimi Zohar To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Patrick Callaghan , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:14:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20191111192348.30535-1-patrickc@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19111217-0008-0000-0000-0000032E6E21 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19111217-0009-0000-0000-00004A4D747C Message-Id: <1573578841.17949.48.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-11-12_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=774 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911120145 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 14:29 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 11/11/19 11:23 AM, Patrick Callaghan wrote: > > > - if (rbuf_len == 0) > > + if (rbuf_len == 0) { /* unexpected EOF */ > > + rc = -EINVAL; > > break; > > + } > > offset += rbuf_len; > > Should there be an additional check to validate that (offset + rbuf_len) > is less than i_size before calling cypto_shash_update (since rbuf_len is > one of the parameters for this call)? The "while" statement enforces that. Mimi > > if ((rbuf_len == 0) || (offset + rbuf_len >= i_size)) { > rc = -EINVAL; > break; > } > offset += rbuf_len; > > > rc = crypto_shash_update(shash, rbuf, rbuf_len); > > -lakshmi >