From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@skynet.be>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: uvcvideo: Fix bounds for descriptor parsing
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:41:09 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260928124109.GF157191@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANiDSCuBFLYXFbq7Vox7AhdhftfzC9Ga6FKL-2F1o08cHQjoAA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 02:35:29PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sept 2026 at 14:24, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 02:10:26PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Sept 2026 at 14:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 01:23:50PM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > > > uvc_parse_control() passes descriptor by descriptor to
> > > > > uvc_parse_standard_control() with the number of bytes remaining in the
> > > > > buffer, not the number of bytes of that descriptor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because of this, malformed descriptors could leak over the next
> > > > > descriptor, leaving malformed data in our structures.
> > > >
> > > > What issue does this fix in practice ?
> > >
> > > Look into uvc_parse_standard_control().
> > > Let's take the UVC_VC_HEADER
> > >
> > > Imagine we have a malformed control at the beginning of the descriptor that has:
> > >
> > > buffer[0] = 3
> > > buffer[2] = UVC_VC_HEADER
> > > buffer[3] => Beggining of next control
> > >
> > > With the current code, buffer[3...X] is parsed as UVC_VC_HEADER.
> > >
> > > What does it fix in practice? It avoids that data outside the controls
> > > is parsed as part of the control.
> >
> > I understand that, but what does it fix in practice ? And have you
> > encountered a device that exhibits such a problem ?
>
> I have not encountered such devices, but even if they do not exist
> they are easy to emulate and use for escalation.
That's what I'd like to understand, can this be used for any kind of
escalation ?
> We add minimal code and solve a family of bugs. Do you think that it
> is a better pattern that uvc_parse_vendor_control() and
> uvc_parse_vendor_control() have visibility beyond the control that
> they are parsing?
I'm concerned that some devices may stop working. The risk is likely
small though, but I'd like to understand what we get from this patch to
see if it's worth the risk.
> > > > > Change the code so we pass the actual length of the descriptor to the
> > > > > parser.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that this makes the existing check more strict and some devices
> > > > > that are wrongly parsed today will not be probed now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Fixes: c0efd232929c ("V4L/DVB (8145a): USB Video Class driver")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c | 7 +++++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c
> > > > > index e289cc71ba98..429f1ab19a2a 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c
> > > > > @@ -1248,11 +1248,14 @@ static int uvc_parse_control(struct uvc_device *dev)
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > while (buflen > 2) {
> > > > > - if (uvc_parse_vendor_control(dev, buffer, buflen) ||
> > > > > + if (buflen < buffer[0] || buffer[0] < 3)
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (uvc_parse_vendor_control(dev, buffer, buffer[0]) ||
> > > > > buffer[1] != USB_DT_CS_INTERFACE)
> > > > > goto next_descriptor;
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = uvc_parse_standard_control(dev, buffer, buflen);
> > > > > + ret = uvc_parse_standard_control(dev, buffer, buffer[0]);
> > > > > if (ret < 0)
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > base-commit: 27953c044974baf7e24dee3e9342fe0103dea80c
> > > > > change-id: 20260911-uvc-ctrl-bound-9c1940f06fc7
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-28 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-11 13:23 Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 12:02 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-09-28 12:10 ` Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 12:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-09-28 12:35 ` Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 12:41 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2026-09-28 14:03 ` Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 18:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-09-28 19:03 ` Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 19:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-09-28 19:49 ` Ricardo Ribalda
2026-09-28 19:55 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-09-28 20:48 ` Ricardo Ribalda
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260928124109.GF157191@killaraus.ideasonboard.com \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=hansg@kernel.org \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@skynet.be \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=ribalda@chromium.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®