qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: Li Qiang <liq3ea@gmail.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	ppandit@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nvme: fix oob access issue(CVE-2018-16847)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 09:40:20 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181102154019.GB26292@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541121763-3277-1-git-send-email-liq3ea@gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 06:22:43PM -0700, Li Qiang wrote:
> Currently, the nvme_cmb_ops mr doesn't check the addr and size.
> This can lead an oob access issue. This is triggerable in the guest.
> Add check to avoid this issue.
> 
> Fixes CVE-2018-16847.
> 
> Reported-by: Li Qiang <liq3ea@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq3ea@gmail.com>

Hey, so why is this memory region access even considered valid if the
request is out of range from what NVMe had registered for its
MemoryRegion? Wouldn't it be better to not call the mr->ops->read/write
if it's out of bounds? Otherwise every MemoryRegion needs to duplicate
the same check, right?

Would something like the following work (minimally tested)?

---
diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c
index 9b73892768..883fd818e6 100644
--- a/memory.c
+++ b/memory.c
@@ -1369,6 +1369,9 @@ bool memory_region_access_valid(MemoryRegion *mr,
         access_size_max = 4;
     }
 
+    if (addr + size > mr->size)
+        return false;
+
     access_size = MAX(MIN(size, access_size_max), access_size_min);
     for (i = 0; i < size; i += access_size) {
         if (!mr->ops->valid.accepts(mr->opaque, addr + i, access_size,
--

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-11-02 15:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-02  1:22 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nvme: fix oob access issue(CVE-2018-16847) Li Qiang
2018-11-02  7:51 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2018-11-02 10:54 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-11-02 15:00   ` Keith Busch
2018-11-02 15:22   ` Li Qiang
2018-11-02 15:42     ` Kevin Wolf
2018-11-05  1:49       ` Li Qiang
2018-11-02 15:40 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2018-11-05  1:56   ` Li Qiang
2018-11-13 18:26   ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-11-13  1:45 ` Li Qiang
2018-11-13 10:17   ` Kevin Wolf
2018-11-13 10:24     ` Li Qiang
2018-11-13 18:27     ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-11-14  1:38       ` Li Qiang
2018-11-14 15:44         ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-11-15  3:14           ` Li Qiang
2018-11-15 18:10             ` Paolo Bonzini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181102154019.GB26292@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=liq3ea@gmail.com \
    --cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=ppandit@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).