On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:14:12PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> mdroth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:06:03AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 02/05/2013 09:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >>> Command memchar-write takes data and size parameter. Begs the
> >> >>> question what happens when data doesn't match size.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With format base64, qmp_memchar_write() copies the full data argument,
> >> >>> regardless of size argument.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With format utf8, qmp_memchar_write() copies size bytes from data,
> >> >>> happily reading beyond data. Copies crap from the heap or even
> >> >>> crashes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Drop the size parameter, and always copy the full data argument.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>> hmp.c | 4 +---
> >> >>> qapi-schema.json | 4 +---
> >> >>> qemu-char.c | 8 +++-----
> >> >>> qmp-commands.hx | 4 +---
> >> >>> 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >>> if (has_format && (format == DATA_FORMAT_BASE64)) {
> >> >>> write_data = g_base64_decode(data, &write_count);
> >> >>> } else {
> >> >>> write_data = (uint8_t *)data;
> >> >>> + write_count = strlen(data);
> >> >>> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously, base64 is the only way to write an embedded NUL. But what
> >> >
> >> > Consider the JSON string "this \\u0000 is fun". But our JSON parser
> >> > chokes on it, so we can ignore it until that's fixed. See my "[PATCH]
> >> > check-qjson: More thorough testing of UTF-8 in strings", specifically
> >> > the comment right at the beginning of utf8_string().
> >> >
> >> >> happens if the user requests base64 encoding, but the utf8 string that
> >> >> got passed in through JSON is not a valid base64-encoded string? Does
> >> >> g_base64_decode report an error in that case, and should you be handling
> >> >> the error here?
> >> >
> >> > Good question. I wish it had occured to GLib developers:
> >> > http://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Base64-Encoding.html#g-base64-decode
> >> >
> >> > Seriously, I need to find out what the heck g_base64_decode() does when
> >> > it's fed crap. If it fails in a reliable and detectable manner, I need
> >> > to handle the failure. If not, I need to replace the function.
> >> >
> >> > Moreover, I should document which characters outside the base64 alphabet
> >> > are silently ignored, if any. All whitespace? Just newlines?
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, it never fails, but silently ignores characters
> >> outside the alphabet [A-Za-z0-9+/], as well as unpadded suffixes. Oh,
> >> and it does something weird when padding appears in the middle.
> >> Craptastic.
> >>
> >> We can either document this behavior as a feature, or we replace the
> >> function by one that accepts only valid base64. If we do the latter, we
> >> better specify the language we want to accept now, but I guess we could
> >> choose to delay the actual checking post 1.4.
> >>
> >> There's another use of g_base64_decode() in qmp_guest_file_write().
> >> Which means guest agent command guest-file-write is similarly
> >> ill-defined. Mike, anything to be done there?
> >
> > For qemu-ga I think the documentation makes it clear enough that we're
> > expecting b64 inputs rather than just interpreting random input as b64,
> > so I don't see a problem with making the checks stricter in the future.
> >
> > One other concern though:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---<test program>---
> >> #include <glib.h>
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >> #include <stdlib.h>
> >>
> >> int
> >> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> >> {
> >> char **ap, *b64;
> >> unsigned char *buf;
> >> size_t sz, i;
> >>
> >> for (ap = argv + 1; *ap; ap++) {
> >> printf("in : %s\n", *ap);
> >> buf = g_base64_decode(*ap, &sz);
> >> printf("out:");
> >> for (i = 0; i < sz; i++) {
> >> printf(" %02x", buf[i]);
> >> }
> >> putchar('\n');
> >> b64 = g_base64_encode(buf, sz);
> >> printf("b64: %s\n", b64);
> >> free(buf);
> >> }
> >> }
> >> ---<test run>---
> >> in : 1
> >> out:
> >> b64:
> >> in : 1=
> >> out:
> >> b64:
> >> in : 1==
> >> out:
> >> b64:
> >> in : 1===
> >> out: d4
> >> b64: 1A==
> >> in : 12
> >> out:
> >> b64:
> >> in : 123
> >> out:
> >> b64:
> >> in : 1234
> >> out: d7 6d f8
> >> b64: 1234
> >> in : =1234
> >> out: 03 5d b7
> >> b64: A123
> >> in : 1=234
> >> out: d4 0d b7
> >> b64: 1A23
> >> in : <>?,./watch this!@#$%^&*()_+
> >> out: ff 06 ad 72 1b 61
> >> b64: /watchth
> >> in : /watchthis+
> >> out: ff 06 ad 72 1b 61
> >> b64: /watchth
> >
> > Am I misinterpreting the output or is base64_encode() actually spitting
> > *out* invalid base64 strings for certain inputs? If so that seems pretty
> > bad for something like guest-file-read, where inputs to base64_encode()
> > are for all intents completely random. Addressing it in hard freeze may
> > not be reasonable, since qemu-ga users must already be prepared to receive
> > garbage from malicious/buggy agents, but I'd certainly pick up a fix for a
> > subsequent stable release.
>
> Which base64_encode() outputs in my test run do you suspect of being
> bad?
>
My mistake. The last 2 caught my eye, but I didn't realize "/" was a valid
base64 character, and that characters were being truncated from the
original input due to padding restrictions, I thought it was just
fudging up the plaintext.
