CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: rmi: fix OOB access with undersized RMI reports The hid-rmi driver sizes its writeReport/readReport buffer purely from the report descriptor supplied by the device, with no minimum bound: data->input_report_size = hid_report_len(input_report); data->output_report_size = hid_report_len(output_report); alloc_size = data->output_report_size + data->input_report_size; data->writeReport = devm_kzalloc(&hdev->dev, alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL); data->readReport = data->writeReport + data->output_report_size; but then reads and writes fixed offsets into it. A device declaring a 1-byte output and a 1-byte input report makes hid_report_len() return 2 for each, so alloc_size is 4, while rmi_set_page() -- reached unconditionally at probe time through rmi_input_configured() -- stores writeReport[4] and rmi_hid_read_block() stores writeReport[0..5]. Since readReport lives at writeReport + output_report_size, those stores also corrupt the window the next reply is parsed out of. The read path is worse: the copy length comes from readReport[1], which the device fills in and can be up to 255, and the copy starts at &readReport[2] with no regard for input_report_size, so it runs past the end of the allocation into adjacent slab objects. This does not even need a lying device -- rmi_f01_probe() issues a fixed 21-byte register read, so any device declaring an input report smaller than 23 bytes reads out of bounds even when it answers truthfully. Those bytes become the register values the RMI core acts on: rmi_f01_probe() prints them to the kernel log as the product id and exports them through the mode 0444 sysfs attribute of the same name, and rmi_driver_set_irq_bits() sends them back to the device as the interrupt mask, so an undersized report descriptor leaks heap contents both to unprivileged userspace and to the device itself. The write path has no bound either: rmi_hid_write_block() copies an unbounded len to &writeReport[4], and the largest caller a device can drive at probe time is rmi_driver_set_irq_bits(), whose length is derived from the interrupt source counts the device declares in its Page Description Table. Finally, the read loop cannot terminate on a zero-length reply: such a reply copies nothing and advances neither bytes_read nor bytes_needed, and because a reply did arrive the one second wait_event_timeout() does not fire either, so a device answering 0 forever keeps the loop running inside the probe worker with page_mutex held. khungtaskd does not notice, because every reply wakes the task. Reject reports too small for what the driver builds -- 6 output bytes for the write reports and 3 input bytes for the read handshake -- at probe time, clamp the write and the read copy to the report sizes the device declared, and treat a zero-length reply as an error. A device refused this way is started as an ordinary HID device, like one that does not carry the RMI report ids at all. RMI_DEVICE must not be left set in device_flags on that path, because rmi_input_configured() would then run the RMI setup and reach rmi_set_page(), which writes the writeReport buffer the refusal just skipped allocating. The bit can arrive set: rmi_probe() copies id->driver_data into device_flags before the report checks, and a bind through the new_id sysfs attribute can supply driver_data with RMI_DEVICE (BIT(0)) set. Strip the bit where driver_data is copied, so RMI_DEVICE keeps meaning exactly "this probe validated the reports"; the three jumps to start that predate this patch are covered as well. The error path also clears RMI_READ_DATA_PENDING on its way out, because that flag is what the wait at the top of the loop tests: leaving it set would make every later wait_event_timeout() return immediately on the stale reply and kill the read path for the rest of the device's life. Clamping does not regress working hardware: the read loop already handles ---truncated---

CVE の情報

メトリクス

メトリクス	スコア	深刻度	CVSS ベクター	出典
V3.1	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H 詳細情報 Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Adjacent The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.	416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67