[PATCH v7 0/1] Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks

[PATCH v7 0/1] Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks

[Harald Freudenberger]

Add or improve checks related to buffer sizes and reply sizes to the
handling of replies from the crypto cards for CCA, EP11 (AP message
type 6) and ICA (AP type 50) messages. The verification code related
to reply field length was not designed well and thus firmware
deficiencies could lead to unexpected behavior in the zcrypt device
driver. Thus improve the code to more closely inspect especially
length fields at message replies.

Rework zcrypt_msgtype6_receive(), zcrypt_msgtype6_receive_ep11() and
zcrypt_msgtype50_receive() to validate reply lengths more carefully
before copying data back into the request buffer. Use size_t for
length calculations, reject inconsistent reply sizes, and add
defensive handling for short invalid replies. For XCRB replies,
validate both reply segments and derive the effective message length
from the covered range instead of trusting only the second segment.

Changelog:
v1 - initial patch
v2 - fixed typo in header check_for_overflow -> check_add_overflow.
v3 - rephrased and smoothed subject and text of the patch. It is now
     "s390/zcrypt: Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks"
     and the text does not talk about malicious cards any more.
     Updated Reviewed-by tags
v4 - As sashiko clearly states the addition of two 32 bit values can
     mathematically never overflow a 64 bit value and thus the
     check_add_overflow() was total overkill - removed.
v5 - Sashiko had a by-catch related to the very same fields. Under
     some circumstances the fields count1 and offset1 of the CPRB
     where not checked but used for a memcpy to userspace. So again a
     rework of the check of these x86 header fields in the receiving
     function before the CPRB is processed to be copied in parts to
     userspace. Removed all reviewed-by as I want to have another
     developer look onto this patch again.
v6 - Again reworked and re-structured the code. As the very same
     pattern appears with message type 50 also reworked the receive
     function there.
v7 - Reworked the debug messages based on feedback from Finn. These
     messages should be real debug messages (so use pr_debug) as the
     intended consumer is a developer. Thus the somehow cryptic debug
     message text. Picked Finn's suggestion to avoid hard coded ERRNO
     message strings and use %d with the real rc instead.

Harald Freudenberger (1):
  s390/zcrypt: Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks

 drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c |  39 ++++---
 drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c  | 149 ++++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

--
2.43.0

[PATCH v7 1/1] s390/zcrypt: Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks

[Harald Freudenberger]

Add or improve checks related to buffer sizes and reply sizes to the
handling of replies from the crypto cards for CCA, EP11 (AP message
type 6) and ICA (AP type 50) messages. The verification code related
to reply field length was not designed well and thus firmware
deficiencies could lead to unexpected behavior in the zcrypt device
driver. Thus improve the code to more closely inspect especially
length fields at message replies.

Rework zcrypt_msgtype6_receive(), zcrypt_msgtype6_receive_ep11() and
zcrypt_msgtype50_receive() to validate reply lengths more carefully
before copying data back into the request buffer. Use size_t for
length calculations, reject inconsistent reply sizes, and add
defensive handling for short invalid replies. For XCRB replies,
validate both reply segments and derive the effective message length
from the covered range instead of trusting only the second segment.

Signed-off-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c |  39 ++++---
 drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c  | 149 ++++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c
index d6fc2d8e7fad..3c5fc97f7399 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype50.c
@@ -416,26 +416,39 @@ static void zcrypt_msgtype50_receive(struct ap_queue *aq,
 		.reply_code = REP82_ERROR_MACHINE_FAILURE,
 	};
 	struct type80_hdr *t80h;
-	int len;
+	size_t len;
 
 	/* Copy the reply message to the request message buffer. */
 	if (!reply)
 		goto out;	/* ap_msg->rc indicates the error */
+
 	t80h = reply->msg;
-	if (t80h->type == TYPE80_RSP_CODE) {
-		len = t80h->len;
-		if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize ||
-		    len != reply->len) {
-			pr_debug("len mismatch => EMSGSIZE\n");
-			msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
-			goto out;
-		}
-		memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
-		msg->len = len;
-	} else {
-		memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
+
+	if (t80h->type != TYPE80_RSP_CODE) {
+		if (reply->len < sizeof(error_reply))
+			memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
+		else
+			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
 		msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	len = t80h->len;
+	if (len != reply->len) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu rpl.len %zu mismatch, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->len, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
 	}
+	if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu exceeds buf %zu/%zu, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->bufsize, msg->bufsize, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
+	}
+	memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
+	msg->len = len;
+
 out:
 	complete(&msg->response.work);
 }
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c
index 3df1d676de5d..5af3e20ad114 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_msgtype6.c
@@ -766,6 +766,13 @@ static int convert_type86_rng(struct zcrypt_queue *zq,
 
 	if (msg->cprbx.ccp_rtcode != 0 || msg->cprbx.ccp_rscode != 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
+	/*
+	 * Note that offset2 and count2 have already been checked in
+	 * zcrypt_msgtype6_receive(). So only check for not exceeding
+	 * the hard coded rng buffer size.
+	 */
+	if (msg->fmt2.count2 > ZCRYPT_RNG_BUFFER_SIZE)
+		return -EMSGSIZE;
 	memcpy(buffer, data + msg->fmt2.offset2, msg->fmt2.count2);
 	return msg->fmt2.count2;
 }
@@ -928,48 +935,73 @@ static void zcrypt_msgtype6_receive(struct ap_queue *aq,
 	};
 	struct ap_response_type *resp_type = &msg->response;
 	struct type86x_reply *t86r;
-	int len;
+	size_t len, len1, len2 = 0;
 
 	/* Copy the reply message to the request message buffer. */
 	if (!reply)
 		goto out;	/* ap_msg->rc indicates the error */
+
 	t86r = reply->msg;
-	if (t86r->hdr.type == TYPE86_RSP_CODE &&
-	    t86r->cprbx.cprb_ver_id == 0x02) {
-		switch (resp_type->type) {
-		case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_ICA:
-			len = sizeof(struct type86x_reply) + t86r->length;
-			if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize ||
-			    len != reply->len) {
-				pr_debug("len mismatch => EMSGSIZE\n");
-				msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
-				goto out;
-			}
-			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
-			msg->len = len;
-			break;
-		case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_XCRB:
-			if (t86r->fmt2.count2)
-				len = t86r->fmt2.offset2 + t86r->fmt2.count2;
-			else
-				len = t86r->fmt2.offset1 + t86r->fmt2.count1;
-			if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize ||
-			    len != reply->len) {
-				pr_debug("len mismatch => EMSGSIZE\n");
+
+	if (t86r->hdr.type != TYPE86_RSP_CODE ||
+	    t86r->cprbx.cprb_ver_id != 0x02) {
+		if (reply->len < sizeof(error_reply))
+			memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
+		else
+			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
+		msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	switch (resp_type->type) {
+	case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_ICA:
+		len = sizeof(struct type86x_reply) + (size_t)t86r->length;
+		break;
+	case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_XCRB:
+		len1 = (size_t)t86r->fmt2.offset1 + (size_t)t86r->fmt2.count1;
+		if (t86r->fmt2.offset1 > reply->len ||
+		    t86r->fmt2.count1 > reply->len) {
+			msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+			pr_debug("offset1 %u count1 %u rpl.len %zu mismatch, msg.rc=%d\n",
+				 t86r->fmt2.offset1, t86r->fmt2.count1,
+				 reply->len, msg->rc);
+			goto out;
+		}
+		if (t86r->fmt2.count2) {
+			len2 = (size_t)t86r->fmt2.offset2 +
+				(size_t)t86r->fmt2.count2;
+			if (t86r->fmt2.offset2 > reply->len ||
+			    t86r->fmt2.count2 > reply->len) {
 				msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+				pr_debug("offset2 %u count2 %u rpl.len %zu mismatch, msg.rc=%d\n",
+					 t86r->fmt2.offset2, t86r->fmt2.count2,
+					 reply->len, msg->rc);
 				goto out;
 			}
-			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
-			msg->len = len;
-			break;
-		default:
-			memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
-			msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
 		}
-	} else {
-		memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
+		len = max_t(size_t, len1, len2);
+		break;
+	default:
+		memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
 		msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	if (len != reply->len) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu rpl.len %zu mismatch, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->len, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
 	}
+	if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu exceeds buf %zu/%zu, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->bufsize, msg->bufsize, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
+	}
+	memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
+	msg->len = len;
+
 out:
 	complete(&resp_type->work);
 }
@@ -992,34 +1024,49 @@ static void zcrypt_msgtype6_receive_ep11(struct ap_queue *aq,
 	};
 	struct ap_response_type *resp_type = &msg->response;
 	struct type86_ep11_reply *t86r;
-	int len;
+	size_t len;
 
 	/* Copy the reply message to the request message buffer. */
 	if (!reply)
 		goto out;	/* ap_msg->rc indicates the error */
+
 	t86r = reply->msg;
-	if (t86r->hdr.type == TYPE86_RSP_CODE &&
-	    t86r->cprbx.cprb_ver_id == 0x04) {
-		switch (resp_type->type) {
-		case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_EP11:
-			len = t86r->fmt2.offset1 + t86r->fmt2.count1;
-			if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize ||
-			    len != reply->len) {
-				pr_debug("len mismatch => EMSGSIZE\n");
-				msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
-				goto out;
-			}
-			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
-			msg->len = len;
-			break;
-		default:
+
+	if (t86r->hdr.type != TYPE86_RSP_CODE ||
+	    t86r->cprbx.cprb_ver_id != 0x04) {
+		if (reply->len < sizeof(error_reply))
 			memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
-			msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
-		}
-	} else {
-		memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
+		else
+			memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, sizeof(error_reply));
 		msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
+		goto out;
 	}
+
+	switch (resp_type->type) {
+	case CEXXC_RESPONSE_TYPE_EP11:
+		len = t86r->fmt2.offset1 + (size_t)t86r->fmt2.count1;
+		break;
+	default:
+		memcpy(msg->msg, &error_reply, sizeof(error_reply));
+		msg->len = sizeof(error_reply);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	if (len != reply->len) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu rpl.len %zu mismatch, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->len, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
+	}
+	if (len > reply->bufsize || len > msg->bufsize) {
+		msg->rc = -EMSGSIZE;
+		pr_debug("len %zu exceeds buf %zu/%zu, msg.rc=%d\n",
+			 len, reply->bufsize, msg->bufsize, msg->rc);
+		goto out;
+	}
+	memcpy(msg->msg, reply->msg, len);
+	msg->len = len;
+
 out:
 	complete(&resp_type->work);
 }
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] s390/zcrypt: Improve zcrypt reply message verification checks

[sashiko-bot]

> Add or improve checks related to buffer sizes and reply sizes to the
> handling of replies from the crypto cards for CCA, EP11 (AP message
> type 6) and ICA (AP type 50) messages. The verification code related
> to reply field length was not designed well and thus firmware
> deficiencies could lead to unexpected behavior in the zcrypt device
> driver. Thus improve the code to more closely inspect especially
> length fields at message replies.
> 
> Rework zcrypt_msgtype6_receive(), zcrypt_msgtype6_receive_ep11() and
> zcrypt_msgtype50_receive() to validate reply lengths more carefully
> before copying data back into the request buffer. Use size_t for
> length calculations, reject inconsistent reply sizes, and add
> defensive handling for short invalid replies. For XCRB replies,
> validate both reply segments and derive the effective message length
> from the covered range instead of trusting only the second segment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com>

Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great!

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260807101918.31482-2-freude@linux.ibm.com?part=1