Re: [PATCH] tty: vt: selection: Add check for valid tiocl_selection values

From: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@gmail.com>,
	syzbot <syzbot+14b0e8f3fd1612e35350@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: vt: selection: Add check for valid tiocl_selection values
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:44:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0fbc2150-b4aa-f2cb-5084-3a9f69b3455d@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <35e860bb-c76c-ca5f-3f48-2bf6cb798689@gmx.de>

On 8/4/22 09:15, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hello Jiri,
>
> Thanks for looking into this patch!
>
> On 8/4/22 07:47, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 30. 07. 22, 20:49, Helge Deller wrote:
>>> The line and column numbers for the selection need to start at 1.
>>> Add the checks to prevent invalid input.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+14b0e8f3fd1612e35350@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
>>> index f7755e73696e..58692a9b4097 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
>>> @@ -326,6 +326,9 @@ static int vc_selection(struct vc_data *vc, struct tiocl_selection *v,
>>>           return 0;
>>>       }
>>>
>>> +    if (!v->xs || !v->ys || !v->xe || !v->ye)
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not sure about this. It potentially breaks userspace (by
>> returning EINVAL now).
>
> Right.
> According to the code below, my interpretation is that all xs/ys/xe/ye values
> should be > 0. But of course I might be wrong on this, as I didn't find any
> documentation for TIOCL_SETSEL.
>
> And if userspace tries to set an invalid selection (e.g. by selecting row 0),
> my patch now returns -EINVAL, while it returned success before.
>
>> And the code below should handle this just fine, right:
>>>       v->xs = min_t(u16, v->xs - 1, vc->vc_cols - 1);
>>>       v->ys = min_t(u16, v->ys - 1, vc->vc_rows - 1);
>>>       v->xe = min_t(u16, v->xe - 1, vc->vc_cols - 1);
>
> It "handles it fine" in the sense that it can cope with the
> input and will not crash.
> But it returns (maybe?) unexpected results...

After some more thinking maybe you are right.
In case a user provided invalid values in the past, simply an unexpected
selection was set, but nothing broke.
Since the patch doesn't fix any critical issue, we could just drop this patch
and leave it as is.

Helge