On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:44 PM Ben Hutchings
<ben.hutchi...@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If the written data starts with a digit, yurex_write() tries to parse
> it as an integer using simple_strtoull().  This requires a null-
> terminator, and currently there's no guarantee that there is one.

Oh, good catch.

> (The sample program at
> https://github.com/NeoCat/YUREX-driver-for-Linux/blob/master/sample/yurex_clock.pl
> writes an integer without a null terminator.  It seems like it must
> have worked by chance!)
>
> Always add a null byte after the written data.  Enlarge the buffer
> to allow for this.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchi...@codethink.co.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/misc/yurex.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/yurex.c b/drivers/usb/misc/yurex.c
> index 3be40eaa1ac9..1232dd49556d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/yurex.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/yurex.c
> @@ -421,13 +421,13 @@ static ssize_t yurex_write(struct file *file, const 
> char __user *user_buffer,
>  {
>         struct usb_yurex *dev;
>         int i, set = 0, retval = 0;
> -       char buffer[16];
> +       char buffer[16 + 1];
>         char *data = buffer;
>         unsigned long long c, c2 = 0;
>         signed long timeout = 0;
>         DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
>
> -       count = min(sizeof(buffer), count);
> +       count = min(sizeof(buffer) - 1, count);
>         dev = file->private_data;
>
>         /* verify that we actually have some data to write */
> @@ -446,6 +446,7 @@ static ssize_t yurex_write(struct file *file, const char 
> __user *user_buffer,
>                 retval = -EFAULT;
>                 goto error;
>         }
> +       buffer[count] = 0;
>         memset(dev->cntl_buffer, CMD_PADDING, YUREX_BUF_SIZE);
>
>         switch (buffer[0]) {

By the way: A little bit below here, there's some other line that looks bogus:

> buffer[6] = CMD_EOF;

AFAICS that should probably go into ->cntl_buffer; `buffer` and `data`
aren't used below that point. But that'd just be a functional bug, not
security-relevant, so I'm not sure whether anyone cares.

Reply via email to