Re: [PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Ilya Matveychikov]

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Ben Hutchings  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 14:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> From: Ilya Matveychikov 
>> 
>> commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.
>> 
>> When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
>> like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
>> calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
>> fills the memory with numbers.
> [...]
>> --- a/lib/cmdline.c
>> +++ b/lib/cmdline.c
>> @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
>>  *   the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
>>  */
>> 
>> -static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
>> +static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
>> {
>>  int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
>> 
>>  (*str)++;
>>  upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
>>  inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
>> -for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
>> +for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
>>  *pint++ = x;
>>  return inc_counter;
>> }
> 
> But this still returns the number of integers in the range (minus 1)...
> 
>> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
>>  break;
>>  if (res == 3) {
>>  int range_nums;
>> -range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
>> +range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
>> i);
>>  if (range_nums < 0)
>>  break;
>>  /*
> 
> ...so that get_options() may set i > nints and ints[0] > nints - 1.
> That will presumably result in out-of-bounds reads in callers.
> 
> (This set of functions really deserves to be given a test suite and then
> rewritten, because they are a *mess*.)
> 

Please review the approach of fixing that:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/19/105

> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Hutchings
> Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Ilya Matveychikov]

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Ben Hutchings  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 14:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> From: Ilya Matveychikov 
>> 
>> commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.
>> 
>> When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
>> like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
>> calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
>> fills the memory with numbers.
> [...]
>> --- a/lib/cmdline.c
>> +++ b/lib/cmdline.c
>> @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
>>  *   the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
>>  */
>> 
>> -static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
>> +static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
>> {
>>  int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
>> 
>>  (*str)++;
>>  upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
>>  inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
>> -for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
>> +for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
>>  *pint++ = x;
>>  return inc_counter;
>> }
> 
> But this still returns the number of integers in the range (minus 1)...
> 
>> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
>>  break;
>>  if (res == 3) {
>>  int range_nums;
>> -range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
>> +range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
>> i);
>>  if (range_nums < 0)
>>  break;
>>  /*
> 
> ...so that get_options() may set i > nints and ints[0] > nints - 1.
> That will presumably result in out-of-bounds reads in callers.
> 
> (This set of functions really deserves to be given a test suite and then
> rewritten, because they are a *mess*.)
> 

Please review the approach of fixing that:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/19/105

> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Hutchings
> Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 14:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> --
> 
> From: Ilya Matveychikov 
> 
> commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.
> 
> When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
> like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
> calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
> fills the memory with numbers.
[...]
> --- a/lib/cmdline.c
> +++ b/lib/cmdline.c
> @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
>   *   the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
>   */
>  
> -static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
> +static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
>  {
>   int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
>  
>   (*str)++;
>   upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
>   inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
> - for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
> + for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
>   *pint++ = x;
>   return inc_counter;
>  }

But this still returns the number of integers in the range (minus 1)...

> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
>   break;
>   if (res == 3) {
>   int range_nums;
> - range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
> + range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
> i);
>   if (range_nums < 0)
>   break;
>   /*

...so that get_options() may set i > nints and ints[0] > nints - 1.
That will presumably result in out-of-bounds reads in callers.

(This set of functions really deserves to be given a test suite and then
rewritten, because they are a *mess*.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

Re: [PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 14:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> --
> 
> From: Ilya Matveychikov 
> 
> commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.
> 
> When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
> like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
> calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
> fills the memory with numbers.
[...]
> --- a/lib/cmdline.c
> +++ b/lib/cmdline.c
> @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
>   *   the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
>   */
>  
> -static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
> +static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
>  {
>   int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
>  
>   (*str)++;
>   upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
>   inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
> - for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
> + for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
>   *pint++ = x;
>   return inc_counter;
>  }

But this still returns the number of integers in the range (minus 1)...

> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
>   break;
>   if (res == 3) {
>   int range_nums;
> - range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
> + range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
> i);
>   if (range_nums < 0)
>   break;
>   /*

...so that get_options() may set i > nints and ints[0] > nints - 1.
That will presumably result in out-of-bounds reads in callers.

(This set of functions really deserves to be given a test suite and then
rewritten, because they are a *mess*.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

[PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

--

From: Ilya Matveychikov 

commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.

When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
fills the memory with numbers.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2613c75c-b04d-4bff-82a6-12f97ba0f...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov 
Cc: Jonathan Corbet 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 

---
 lib/cmdline.c |6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/lib/cmdline.c
+++ b/lib/cmdline.c
@@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
  * the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
  */
 
-static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
+static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
 {
int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
 
(*str)++;
upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
-   for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
+   for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
*pint++ = x;
return inc_counter;
 }
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
break;
if (res == 3) {
int range_nums;
-   range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
+   range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
i);
if (range_nums < 0)
break;
/*

[PATCH 4.4 03/26] lib/cmdline.c: fix get_options() overflow while parsing ranges

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

--

From: Ilya Matveychikov 

commit a91e0f680bcd9e10c253ae8b62462a38bd48f09f upstream.

When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
like 1-100500.  The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
fills the memory with numbers.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2613c75c-b04d-4bff-82a6-12f97ba0f...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov 
Cc: Jonathan Corbet 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 

---
 lib/cmdline.c |6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/lib/cmdline.c
+++ b/lib/cmdline.c
@@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
  * the values[M, M+1, ..., N] into the ints array in get_options.
  */
 
-static int get_range(char **str, int *pint)
+static int get_range(char **str, int *pint, int n)
 {
int x, inc_counter, upper_range;
 
(*str)++;
upper_range = simple_strtol((*str), NULL, 0);
inc_counter = upper_range - *pint;
-   for (x = *pint; x < upper_range; x++)
+   for (x = *pint; n && x < upper_range; x++, n--)
*pint++ = x;
return inc_counter;
 }
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ char *get_options(const char *str, int n
break;
if (res == 3) {
int range_nums;
-   range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i);
+   range_nums = get_range((char **), ints + i, nints - 
i);
if (range_nums < 0)
break;
/*