qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] CVE-2011-2212: has it been actually fixed?


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] CVE-2011-2212: has it been actually fixed?
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:36:14 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1

On 07/07/2012 08:37 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
I come across a patch in ububtu qemu-kvm package, this:

From: Nelson Elhage<address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 13:23:17 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] virtqueue: Sanity-check the length of indirect descriptors.

We were previously allowing arbitrarily-long descriptors, which could lead to a
buffer overflow in the qemu-kvm process.

I don't have the original thread handy, but while the CVE was still embargoed, we made some changes to Nelson's original patch which is what led to Michael's patch.

We had a test case for the bug and confirmed that Michael's patch fixed that test case.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


Index: qemu-kvm-1.1~rc+dfsg/hw/virtio.c
===================================================================
--- qemu-kvm-1.1~rc+dfsg.orig/hw/virtio.c       2012-06-01 01:19:22.000000000 
+0000
+++ qemu-kvm-1.1~rc+dfsg/hw/virtio.c    2012-06-12 19:31:02.336250076 +0000
@@ -370,6 +370,11 @@
              max = vring_desc_len(desc_pa, i) / sizeof(VRingDesc);
              num_bufs = i = 0;
              desc_pa = vring_desc_addr(desc_pa, i);
+
+            if (max>  VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE) {
+                error_report("Too-large indirect descriptor");
+                exit(1);
+            }
          }

          do {
@@ -443,6 +448,11 @@
          max = vring_desc_len(desc_pa, i) / sizeof(VRingDesc);
          desc_pa = vring_desc_addr(desc_pa, i);
          i = 0;
+
+        if (max>  VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE) {
+            error_report("Too-large indirect descriptor");
+            exit(1);
+        }
      }

      /* Collect all the descriptors */


And I wonder if it is still needed.  The mentioned CVE-2011-2212
has been fixed before 0.15, by the following:


commit c8eac1cfa1e9104a658b4614ada758861b8d823a
Author: Michael S. Tsirkin<address@hidden>
Date:   Mon Jun 20 13:42:27 2011 +0300

     virtio: fix indirect descriptor buffer overflow

     We were previously allowing arbitrarily-long indirect descriptors, which
     could lead to a buffer overflow in qemu-kvm process.

     CVE-2011-2212

     Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<address@hidden>

diff --git a/hw/virtio.c b/hw/virtio.c
index cc47a06..a8f4940 100644
--- a/hw/virtio.c
+++ b/hw/virtio.c
@@ -449,9 +449,17 @@ int virtqueue_pop(VirtQueue *vq, VirtQueueElement *elem)
          struct iovec *sg;

          if (vring_desc_flags(desc_pa, i)&  VRING_DESC_F_WRITE) {
+            if (elem->in_num>= ARRAY_SIZE(elem->in_sg)) {
+                error_report("Too many write descriptors in indirect table");
+                exit(1);
+            }
              elem->in_addr[elem->in_num] = vring_desc_addr(desc_pa, i);
              sg =&elem->in_sg[elem->in_num++];
          } else {
+            if (elem->out_num>= ARRAY_SIZE(elem->out_sg)) {
+                error_report("Too many read descriptors in indirect table");
+                exit(1);
+            }
              elem->out_addr[elem->out_num] = vring_desc_addr(desc_pa, i);
              sg =&elem->out_sg[elem->out_num++];
          }


But this one - apparently - fixes a different codepath, no?

Thanks,

/mjt





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]