Re: [PATCH] ide:atapi: check io_buffer_index in ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end

2020-12-11 Thread Wenxiang Qian
*buf, int size,
  EndTransferFunc *end_transfer_func)
{
s->data_ptr = buf; //s->io_buffer + s->io_buffer_index - size
s->data_end = buf + size;  //data_ptr + 2048

s->bus->dma->ops->pio_transfer(s->bus->dma);  //###9
return true;
}

//9:
static const IDEDMAOps ahci_dma_ops = {
...
.pio_transfer = ahci_pio_transfer,
...
};

In the final processing function ahci_pio_transfer:

static void ahci_pio_transfer(const IDEDMA *dma)
{


uint32_t size = (uint32_t)(s->data_end - s->data_ptr);  // 2048, usually

uint16_t opts = le16_to_cpu(ad->cur_cmd->opts);  //user controlled
value#
int is_write = opts & AHCI_CMD_WRITE;// read or write is
decided by user.

.


if (has_sglist && size) {
if (is_write) {
dma_buf_write(s->data_ptr, size, >sg);   //##10# both
can be reached 
} else {
dma_buf_read(s->data_ptr, size, >sg);//##11# both
can be reached 
}
}
}


s->data_ptr can be a value out of range, so base on ad->cur_cmd->opts,
 ##10## ##11## can be OOB read or OOB write.

OOB read: obtain the leaked information, which can be used to bypass ASLR
or obtain information about the host.
OOB write: which may overwrite some structs of the virtual device after it,
overwrite the function pointers in the struct.

Best regards,
Wenxiang Qian

P J P  于2020年12月2日周三 下午9:17写道:

>   Hi,
>
> [doing a combined reply]
>
> +-- On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote --+
> | Is it possible to release the reproducer to the community, so we can
> work on
> | a fix and test it?
>
> * No, we can not release/share reproducers on a public list.
>
> * We can request reporters to do so by their volition.
>
>
> | What happens to reproducers when a CVE is assigned, but the bug is
> marked as
> | "out of the QEMU security boundary"?
> |
> +-- On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, Peter Maydell wrote --+
> | Also, why are we assigning CVEs for bugs we don't consider security bugs?
>
> * We need to mark these componets 'out of security scope' at the source
> level,
>   rather than on each bug.
>
> * Easiest could be to just have a list of such components in the git text
>   file. At least till the time we device --security build and run time
> option
>   discussed earlier.
>   ->
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-07/msg04680.html
>
> +-- On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, Paolo Bonzini wrote --+
> | qtests are not just helpful.  Adding regression tests for bugs is a
> *basic*
> | software engineering principle.  If you don't have time to write tests,
> you
> | (or your organization) should find it.
>
> * I've been doing the patch work out of my own interest.
>
> * We generally rely on upstream/engineering for fix patches, because of
> our
>   narrower understanding of the code base.
>
> +-- On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Markus Armbruster wrote --+
> | Paolo Bonzini  writes:
> | > you need at least to enclose the reproducer, otherwise you're posting
> a
> | > puzzle not a patch. :)
> |
> | Indeed. Posting puzzles is a negative-sum game.]
>
> * Agreed. I think the upcoming 'qemu-security' list may help in this
> regard.
>   As issue reports+reproducer details shall go there.
>
> * Even then, we'll need to ask reporter's permission before sharing their
>   reproducers on a public list OR with non-members.
>
> * Best is if reporters share/release reproducers themselves. Maybe we can
> have
>   a public git repository and they can send a PR to include their
> reproducers
>   in the repository.
>
> * That way multiple reproducers for the same issue can be held together.
>
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Product Security Team
> 8685 545E B54C 486B C6EB 271E E285 8B5A F050 DE8D


Re: [PATCH] ide:atapi: check io_buffer_index in ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end

2020-12-11 Thread Wenxiang Qian
+ The lba is set to -1 to avoid some code paths, to make PoC simpler.

void ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end(IDEState *s)
{
int byte_count_limit, size, ret;
while (s->packet_transfer_size > 0) {
.
if (s->lba != -1 && s->io_buffer_index >= s->cd_sector_size) {
<- set lba to -1 to avoid this part
 .
}
if (s->elementary_transfer_size > 0) {
..
} else {
...
if (s->lba != -1) {   <-
if (size > (s->cd_sector_size - s->io_buffer_index))
size = (s->cd_sector_size - s->io_buffer_index);  <-
}
}

Wenxiang Qian  于2020年12月11日周五 下午4:23写道:

> Hello,
>
> I may not have made the detail clear in my previous email. The details of
> the AHCI device, after running the reproducer I attached in my report are
> as follows. If there is any information I can provide, please let me know.
> Thank you.
>
> ###root cause###
> (1) The s->packet_transfer_size is bigger than the actual data.
> (2) packet_transfer_size is passed into  ide_atapi_cmd_reply_end, as the
> total number of iterations. Each iterate round, s->io_buffer_index is
> increased by 2048, but without boundary check.
> (3) The call to ide_transfer_start_norecurse use s->io_buffer +
> s->io_buffer_index - size as the index, cause an OOB access.
>
> ###details###
> 1. The reproducer sends a command of [WIN_PACKETCMD] + [CMD_READ] and
> value of IDE device's registers from guest to qemu.
>
> Callback ahci_port_write is called, then check_cmd is called.
>
> 2. The packet will set all the registers of the device via: handle_cmd -->
> handle_reg_h2d_fis.
>
> Registers will be set here:
>
> handle_reg_h2d_fis(..){
> ...
> ide_state->feature = cmd_fis[3];   //##[1]## , cmd_fis is the
> data sent by the reproducer.
> ide_state->sector = cmd_fis[4];  /* LBA 7:0 */
> ide_state->lcyl = cmd_fis[5];/* LBA 15:8  */
> ide_state->hcyl = cmd_fis[6];/* LBA 23:16 */
> ide_state->select = cmd_fis[7];  /* LBA 27:24 (LBA28) */
> ide_state->hob_sector = cmd_fis[8];  /* LBA 31:24 */
> ide_state->hob_lcyl = cmd_fis[9];/* LBA 39:32 */
> ide_state->hob_hcyl = cmd_fis[10];   /* LBA 47:40 */
> ide_state->hob_feature = cmd_fis[11];
> ide_state->nsector = (int64_t)((cmd_fis[13] << 8) | cmd_fis[12]);
>
>  and ide_exec_cmd will be called to process [WIN_PACKETCMD] command.
>  ide_exec_cmd(>dev[port].port, cmd_fis[2]);
>
> 3. ide_exec_cmd (core.c) handles the command,
>
> [WIN_PACKETCMD]   = { cmd_packet, CD_OK },
>
> and make a call to cmd_packet,
>
> cmd_packet(...) {
> ...
>
> s->atapi_dma = s->feature & 1;  //##[2]##
> if (s->atapi_dma) {
> s->dma_cmd = IDE_DMA_ATAPI;
> }
> s->nsector = 1;
> ide_transfer_start(s, s->io_buffer, ATAPI_PACKET_SIZE,
>ide_atapi_cmd);
> ...
> }
>
> and set the device to use PIO mode according to s->feature (set in Step
> 2->##[1]##).
>
> Then, ide_transfer_start is called.
> It will pass the [CMD_READ] part after [WIN_PACKETCMD] to ide_atapi_cmd.
>
> 4. ide_atapi_cmd parses [CMD_READ], and then calls the corresponding
> handler: cmd_read.
>
> [ 0x28 ] = { cmd_read, /* (10) */   CHECK_READY },
>
> In cmd_read, the values of nb_sectors and lba are determined according to
> the packets passed by the reproducer.
>
> In my PoC I set lba to -1 (0xfff) and nb_sectors to a large value,
> such as 0x800.
>
>
> static void cmd_read(IDEState *s, uint8_t* buf)
> {
> int nb_sectors, lba;
>
> if (buf[0] == GPCMD_READ_10) {
> nb_sectors = lduw_be_p(buf + 7);
> } else {
> nb_sectors = ldl_be_p(buf + 6);   //#3#
> }
>
> lba = ldl_be_p(buf + 2);   //##4##
>
> 
>
> ide_atapi_cmd_read(s, lba, nb_sectors, 2048);
> }
>
> 5. The code enters the ide_atapi_cmd_read -> ide_atapi_cmd_read_pio.
>
> static void ide_atapi_cmd_read(.)
> {...
> if (s->atapi_dma) {
> ide_atapi_cmd_read_dma(s, lba, nb_sectors, sector_size);
> } else {
> ide_atapi_cmd_read_pio(s, lba, nb_sectors, sector_size);
>  //##5###
> }
> }
>
> It will set the attributes according to the value passed in the previous
> steps.
> The number of s->packet_transfer_size, which is the packet to read or
> write, nb_sectors * 2048 can be larger than the buffer pre-allocated by
> qemu (about 256KB).
>
>
> static void ide_atapi_cmd_read