On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:26:15PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:14:47PM +0100, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > From: Ben Seri <b...@armis.com> > > > > In the function l2cap_parse_conf_rsp and in the function > > l2cap_parse_conf_req the following variable is declared without > > initialization: > > > > struct l2cap_conf_efs efs; > > > > In addition, when parsing input configuration parameters in both of > > these functions, the switch case for handling EFS elements may skip the > > memcpy call that will write to the efs variable: > > > > ... > > case L2CAP_CONF_EFS: > > if (olen == sizeof(efs)) > > memcpy(&efs, (void *)val, olen); > > ... > > > > The olen in the above if is attacker controlled, and regardless of that > > if, in both of these functions the efs variable would eventually be > > added to the outgoing configuration request that is being built: > > > > l2cap_add_conf_opt(&ptr, L2CAP_CONF_EFS, sizeof(efs), (unsigned long) &efs); > > > > So by sending a configuration request, or response, that contains an > > L2CAP_CONF_EFS element, but with an element length that is not > > sizeof(efs) - the memcpy to the uninitialized efs variable can be > > avoided, and the uninitialized variable would be returned to the > > attacker (16 bytes). > > > > This issue has been assigned CVE-2017-1000410 > > > > Cc: Marcel Holtmann <mar...@holtmann.org> > > Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gust...@padovan.org> > > Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedb...@gmail.com> > > Cc: stable <sta...@vger.kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Seri <b...@armis.com> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > > --- > > net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > Marcel, for some reason this patch never got applied, despite lots of > > advance notice. Please, someone queue it up as it resolves the above > > very-well-reported issue. > > > > This patch is still not upstream or in -next. Given that we (ChromeOS) > are heavy Bluetooth users, I'll go ahead and apply it without waiting > any longer. For my understanding and for tracking purposes, it would > be useful to know why it is not being applied. Does anyone know ?
I have no idea what is going on here, I'm going to throw it in my char-misc tree now, this really isn't acceptable at all. greg k-h
