CVE-2022-49261

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

drm/i915/gem: add missing boundary check in vm_access

A missing bounds check in vm_access() can lead to an out-of-bounds read or write in the adjacent memory area, since the len attribute is not validated before the memcpy later in the function, potentially hitting:

[ 183.637831] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc90000c86000 [ 183.637934] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode [ 183.637997] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page [ 183.638059] PGD 100000067 P4D 100000067 PUD 100258067 PMD 106341067 PTE 0 [ 183.638144] Oops: 0000 [#2] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI [ 183.638201] CPU: 3 PID: 1790 Comm: poc Tainted: G D 5.17.0-rc6-ci-drm-11296+ #1 [ 183.638298] Hardware name: Intel Corporation CoffeeLake Client Platform/CoffeeLake H DDR4 RVP, BIOS CNLSFWR1.R00.X208.B00.1905301319 05/30/2019 [ 183.638430] RIP: 0010:memcpy_erms+0x6/0x10 [ 183.640213] RSP: 0018:ffffc90001763d48 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 183.641117] RAX: ffff888109c14000 RBX: ffff888111bece40 RCX: 0000000000000ffc [ 183.642029] RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: ffffc90000c86000 RDI: ffff888109c14004 [ 183.642946] RBP: 0000000000000ffc R08: 800000000000016b R09: 0000000000000000 [ 183.643848] R10: ffffc90000c85000 R11: 0000000000000048 R12: 0000000000001000 [ 183.644742] R13: ffff888111bed190 R14: ffff888109c14000 R15: 0000000000001000 [ 183.645653] FS: 00007fe5ef807540(0000) GS:ffff88845b380000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 183.646570] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 183.647481] CR2: ffffc90000c86000 CR3: 000000010ff02006 CR4: 00000000003706e0 [ 183.648384] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 183.649271] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 183.650142] Call Trace: [ 183.650988] [ 183.651793] vm_access+0x1f0/0x2a0 [i915] [ 183.652726] __access_remote_vm+0x224/0x380 [ 183.653561] mem_rw.isra.0+0xf9/0x190 [ 183.654402] vfs_read+0x9d/0x1b0 [ 183.655238] ksys_read+0x63/0xe0 [ 183.656065] do_syscall_64+0x38/0xc0 [ 183.656882] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [ 183.657663] RIP: 0033:0x7fe5ef725142 [ 183.659351] RSP: 002b:00007ffe1e81c7e8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 [ 183.660227] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000557055dfb780 RCX: 00007fe5ef725142 [ 183.661104] RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: 00007ffe1e81d880 RDI: 0000000000000005 [ 183.661972] RBP: 00007ffe1e81e890 R08: 0000000000000030 R09: 0000000000000046 [ 183.662832] R10: 0000557055dfc2e0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000557055dfb1c0 [ 183.663691] R13: 00007ffe1e81e980 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000

Changes since v1: - Updated if condition with range_overflows_t [Chris Wilson]

[mauld: tidy up the commit message and add Cc: stable] (cherry picked from commit 661412e301e2ca86799aa4f400d1cf0bd38c57c6)

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/312d3d4f49e12f97260bcf972c848c3562126a18
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3886a86e7e6cc6ce2ce93c440fecd8f42aed0ce7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5f6e560e3e86ac053447524224e411034f41f5c7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/89ddcc81914ab58cc203acc844f27d55ada8ec0e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8f0ebea8f6e8c474264ed97d7a64c9c09ed4f5aa