* [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write
@ 2026-03-17 16:24 Lee Jones
2026-03-17 16:42 ` Benjamin Tissoires
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-03-17 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lee, Filipe Laíns, Jiri Kosina, Benjamin Tissoires,
linux-input, linux-kernel
logi_dj_recv_send_report() assumes that all incoming REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT
reports are 14 Bytes (DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) long. It uses that
assumption to load the associated field's 'value' array with 14 Bytes of
data. However, if a malicious user only sends say 1 Byte of data,
'report_count' will be 1 and only 1 Byte of memory will be allocated to
the 'value' Byte array. When we come to populate 'value[1-13]' we will
experience an OOB write.
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
index 44b716697510..885b986c7a12 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
@@ -1282,6 +1282,12 @@ static int logi_dj_recv_send_report(struct dj_receiver_dev *djrcv_dev,
return -ENODEV;
}
+ if (report->maxfield < 1 || report->field[0]->report_count != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) {
+ hid_err(hdev, "Expected size of dj report is %d, but got %d",
+ DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1, report->field[0]->report_count);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
for (i = 0; i < DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1; i++)
report->field[0]->value[i] = data[i];
--
2.53.0.851.ga537e3e6e9-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write
2026-03-17 16:24 [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write Lee Jones
@ 2026-03-17 16:42 ` Benjamin Tissoires
2026-03-17 17:20 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Tissoires @ 2026-03-17 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Jones; +Cc: Filipe Laíns, Jiri Kosina, linux-input, linux-kernel
On Mar 17 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> logi_dj_recv_send_report() assumes that all incoming REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT
> reports are 14 Bytes (DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) long. It uses that
> assumption to load the associated field's 'value' array with 14 Bytes of
> data. However, if a malicious user only sends say 1 Byte of data,
> 'report_count' will be 1 and only 1 Byte of memory will be allocated to
> the 'value' Byte array. When we come to populate 'value[1-13]' we will
> experience an OOB write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> index 44b716697510..885b986c7a12 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> @@ -1282,6 +1282,12 @@ static int logi_dj_recv_send_report(struct dj_receiver_dev *djrcv_dev,
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> + if (report->maxfield < 1 || report->field[0]->report_count != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) {
This is all static information. So this should be checked in the
.probe(), once the device has been parsed, not for every single call of
logi_dj_recv_send_report().
Cheers,
Benjamin
> + hid_err(hdev, "Expected size of dj report is %d, but got %d",
> + DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1, report->field[0]->report_count);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> for (i = 0; i < DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1; i++)
> report->field[0]->value[i] = data[i];
>
> --
> 2.53.0.851.ga537e3e6e9-goog
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write
2026-03-17 16:42 ` Benjamin Tissoires
@ 2026-03-17 17:20 ` Lee Jones
2026-03-17 17:24 ` Jiri Kosina
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-03-17 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Tissoires
Cc: Filipe Laíns, Jiri Kosina, linux-input, linux-kernel
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Mar 17 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> > logi_dj_recv_send_report() assumes that all incoming REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT
> > reports are 14 Bytes (DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) long. It uses that
> > assumption to load the associated field's 'value' array with 14 Bytes of
> > data. However, if a malicious user only sends say 1 Byte of data,
> > 'report_count' will be 1 and only 1 Byte of memory will be allocated to
> > the 'value' Byte array. When we come to populate 'value[1-13]' we will
> > experience an OOB write.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > index 44b716697510..885b986c7a12 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > @@ -1282,6 +1282,12 @@ static int logi_dj_recv_send_report(struct dj_receiver_dev *djrcv_dev,
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > + if (report->maxfield < 1 || report->field[0]->report_count != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) {
>
> This is all static information. So this should be checked in the
> .probe(), once the device has been parsed, not for every single call of
> logi_dj_recv_send_report().
Doesn't report_count come from the device?
I can manipulate it with my user app.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write
2026-03-17 17:20 ` Lee Jones
@ 2026-03-17 17:24 ` Jiri Kosina
2026-03-19 8:45 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Kosina @ 2026-03-17 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Jones
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires, Filipe Laíns, linux-input, linux-kernel
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > index 44b716697510..885b986c7a12 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > @@ -1282,6 +1282,12 @@ static int logi_dj_recv_send_report(struct dj_receiver_dev *djrcv_dev,
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (report->maxfield < 1 || report->field[0]->report_count != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) {
> >
> > This is all static information. So this should be checked in the
> > .probe(), once the device has been parsed, not for every single call of
> > logi_dj_recv_send_report().
>
> Doesn't report_count come from the device?
The point is -- maxfield and report_count can't change once parsed unless
the report descriptor would be re-read and re-parsed (which doesn't happen
in runtime, only during probe).
So checking during probe/parse time just once should be sufficient,
instead of checking it upon every received report.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write
2026-03-17 17:24 ` Jiri Kosina
@ 2026-03-19 8:45 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-03-19 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Kosina
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires, Filipe Laíns, linux-input, linux-kernel
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > > index 44b716697510..885b986c7a12 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c
> > > > @@ -1282,6 +1282,12 @@ static int logi_dj_recv_send_report(struct dj_receiver_dev *djrcv_dev,
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (report->maxfield < 1 || report->field[0]->report_count != DJREPORT_SHORT_LENGTH - 1) {
> > >
> > > This is all static information. So this should be checked in the
> > > .probe(), once the device has been parsed, not for every single call of
> > > logi_dj_recv_send_report().
> >
> > Doesn't report_count come from the device?
>
> The point is -- maxfield and report_count can't change once parsed unless
> the report descriptor would be re-read and re-parsed (which doesn't happen
> in runtime, only during probe).
>
> So checking during probe/parse time just once should be sufficient,
> instead of checking it upon every received report.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I'll give it a shot.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-03-19 8:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-03-17 16:24 [PATCH 1/1] HID: logitech-dj: Prevent REPORT_ID_DJ_SHORT related user initiated OOB write Lee Jones
2026-03-17 16:42 ` Benjamin Tissoires
2026-03-17 17:20 ` Lee Jones
2026-03-17 17:24 ` Jiri Kosina
2026-03-19 8:45 ` Lee Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox