qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] qtest/libqtest.c: fix heap-buffer-overflow in qtest_cb_for_e


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qtest/libqtest.c: fix heap-buffer-overflow in qtest_cb_for_every_machine()
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:46:54 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0

On 04/01/2021 15.10, Gan Qixin wrote:
When the length of mname is less than 5, memcpy ("xenfv", mname, 5) will cause
heap buffer overflow. Therefore, use strcmp to avoid this problem.

The asan showed stack:

ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x60200000f2f4 at
pc 0x7f65d8cc2225 bp 0x7ffe93cc5a60 sp 0x7ffe93cc5208 READ of size 5 at
0x60200000f2f4 thread T0
     #0 0x7f65d8cc2224 in memcmp (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xdf224)
     #1 0x5632c20be95b in qtest_cb_for_every_machine tests/qtest/libqtest.c:1282
     #2 0x5632c20b7995 in main tests/qtest/test-hmp.c:160
     #3 0x7f65d88fed42 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x26d42)
     #4 0x5632c20b72cd in _start (build/tests/qtest/test-hmp+0x542cd)

Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Gan Qixin <ganqixin@huawei.com>
---
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>
---
  tests/qtest/libqtest.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/qtest/libqtest.c b/tests/qtest/libqtest.c
index e49f3a1e45..e8179a3509 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/libqtest.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/libqtest.c
@@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ void qtest_cb_for_every_machine(void (*cb)(const char 
*machine),
          g_assert(qstr);
          mname = qstring_get_str(qstr);
          /* Ignore machines that cannot be used for qtests */
-        if (!memcmp("xenfv", mname, 5) || g_str_equal("xenpv", mname)) {
+        if (!strcmp("xenfv", mname) || g_str_equal("xenpv", mname)) {

Using strcmp() is likely wrong here, since we're talking about strings like "xenfv-4.2" here ... so I guess strncmp(..., 5) would be the right way to go?

 Thomas




reply via email to

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