Hello Manish,
In your recent talk[1] at LinaroConnect about the Firmware Handoff
specification, you were asking about what other use cases it could
address for OP-TEE.
We ran into a possible use case that we would like to share:
BL2 can pass a DT to OP-TEE, which it would use to discover memory and
to fix up with memory reservations covering the memory it carves out for
itself.
OP-TEE also supports passing along the reservations as a device tree
overlay. AFAICS, there is no way currently to have both: A DT for OP-TEE
to probe hardware from and a way to pass the normal world a device tree
overlay in return.
I think this could be neatly addressed with Firmware Handoff and would
be a motivation for us to implement support in barebox BL2/BL33 to take
advantage of this. The current way is suboptimal as we would prefer the
DT passed to OP-TEE to be read-only. This avoids either having to copy
it or to pad it sufficiently in anticipation of it growing with the
addition of the new nodes.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxU798h8aiE
Cheers,
Ahmad
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Hello Bjorn and Mathieu,
I am resending this series after waiting for over two months for Bjorn's
feedback, despite a prior reminder.
Please could you coordinate between yourselves to determine who will continue
reviewing this series? It would be greatly appreciated if the review could
proceed within a more reasonable timeframe.
Thanks in advance and best regards,
Arnaud
Main updates from version V15[1]:
- Removed the rproc_ops:load_fw() operation introduced in the previous version.
- Returned to managing the remoteproc firmware loading in rproc_tee_parse_fw to
load and authenticate the firmware before getting the resource table.
- Added spinlock and dev_link mechanisms in remoteproc TEE to better manage
bind/unbind.
More details are available in each patch commit message.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20241128084219.2159197-7-arnaud.po…
Tested-on: commit 0ff41df1cb26 ("Linux 6.15")
Description of the feature:
--------------------------
This series proposes the implementation of a remoteproc tee driver to
communicate with a TEE trusted application responsible for authenticating
and loading the remoteproc firmware image in an Arm secure context.
1) Principle:
The remoteproc tee driver provides services to communicate with the OP-TEE
trusted application running on the Trusted Execution Context (TEE).
The trusted application in TEE manages the remote processor lifecycle:
- authenticating and loading firmware images,
- isolating and securing the remote processor memories,
- supporting multi-firmware (e.g., TF-M + Zephyr on a Cortex-M33),
- managing the start and stop of the firmware by the TEE.
2) Format of the signed image:
Refer to:
https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/ta/remoteproc/src/remoteproc…
3) OP-TEE trusted application API:
Refer to:
https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/ta/remoteproc/include/ta_rem…
4) OP-TEE signature script
Refer to:
https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/scripts/sign_rproc_fw.py
Example of usage:
sign_rproc_fw.py --in <fw1.elf> --in <fw2.elf> --out <signed_fw.sign> --key ${OP-TEE_PATH}/keys/default.pem
5) Impact on User space Application
No sysfs impact. The user only needs to provide the signed firmware image
instead of the ELF image.
For more information about the implementation, a presentation is available here
(note that the format of the signed image has evolved between the presentation
and the integration in OP-TEE).
https://resources.linaro.org/en/resource/6c5bGvZwUAjX56fvxthxds
Arnaud Pouliquen (6):
remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_pa_to_va helper
remoteproc: Add TEE support
remoteproc: Introduce release_fw optional operation
dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add compatibility for TEE support
remoteproc: stm32: Create sub-functions to request shutdown and
release
remoteproc: stm32: Add support of an OP-TEE TA to load the firmware
.../bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml | 58 +-
drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig | 10 +
drivers/remoteproc/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 52 ++
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 6 +
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_tee.c | 619 ++++++++++++++++++
drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 139 +++-
include/linux/remoteproc.h | 4 +
include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h | 90 +++
9 files changed, 935 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_tee.c
create mode 100644 include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h
base-commit: 0ff41df1cb268fc69e703a08a57ee14ae967d0ca
--
2.25.1
Hi Jens, Sumit,
The following change has recently been merged: tee: optee: Fix supplicant wait loop
(https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/70b0d6b0a199c5a3ee6c72f5e61681ed6f…).
This fix addresses the issue where the supplicant may terminate before the client due to
the shutdown sequence or a crash. However, it introduces a potential new issue - now that
the client is killable, what happens if it terminates before the supplicant?
During cleanup, the client would remove/free the request, while the request would still
be available in the request idr for the supplicant. Although I have not been able to
reproduce it, this could theoretically result in a kernel page fault.
To address this, there are a few options:
(1) Use rcu and access request under a read lock in optee_supp_recv and optee_supp_send.
(2) Reuse supp->mutex, ensuring that most of these functions run within the lock,
even though it may not always be necessary.
Could you confirm whether this behavior was intentional? If not, I am happy to
prepare a patch. Additionally, please let me know whether you prefer solution
(1) or (2), or if you have any other suggestions.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Amir
From: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
[ Upstream commit 39bb67edcc582b3b386a9ec983da67fa8a10ec03 ]
The current code around TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE() is a bit wrong on
32-bit kernels: Multiplying a user-provided 32-bit value with the
size of a structure can wrap around on such platforms.
Fix it by using saturating arithmetic for the size calculation.
This has no security consequences because, in all users of
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(), the subsequent kcalloc() implicitly checks
for wrapping.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org>
Tested-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski(a)linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
**YES** This commit should be backported to stable kernel trees. Here's
my extensive analysis: ## Vulnerability Analysis The commit fixes a real
integer overflow vulnerability in the TEE (Trusted Execution
Environment) subsystem on 32-bit kernels. The issue occurs in the
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE()` macro defined as: ```c #define
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x)) ``` Where
`struct tee_ioctl_param` is 32 bytes (4 × 8-byte fields). On 32-bit
systems, when a user provides a large `num_params` value, the
multiplication `32 * num_params` can wrap around, potentially bypassing
buffer length validation checks. ## Specific Vulnerable Code Locations
The vulnerable pattern appears in 4 locations in
`drivers/tee/tee_core.c`: 1. **Line 490**: `tee_ioctl_open_session()` -
`sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 2.
**Line 568**: `tee_ioctl_invoke()` - `sizeof(arg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 3. **Line 702**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_recv()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len` 4. **Line 801**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_send()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len` ## Attack Scenario On
32-bit systems, if `num_params = 0x08000000` (134,217,728), then: -
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(0x08000000) = 32 * 0x08000000 = 0x100000000` -
This wraps to `0x00000000` on 32-bit systems - The size validation
`sizeof(arg) + 0 != buf.buf_len` could be bypassed - Subsequent
`kcalloc()` would allocate a huge buffer, but the size calculations
would be wrong ## Why This Should Be Backported **Matches "YES" backport
criteria from similar commits:** 1. **Security Fix**: Like Similar
Commit #2 (rtl8188eu security hole) and #4 (gup_benchmark integer
overflow), this prevents user-controlled integer overflow that could
lead to memory corruption. 2. **Small, Contained Change**: The fix uses
the kernel's standard `size_add()` and `size_mul()` helpers from
`linux/overflow.h` - exactly like Similar Commit #3 which was noted as
using `size_add()` for similar protection. 3. **Critical Subsystem**:
TEE handles sensitive cryptographic operations and trusted applications,
making security fixes here particularly important. 4. **Low Regression
Risk**: The fix only adds overflow protection without changing
functionality. The `size_mul()` and `size_add()` functions are well-
tested kernel overflow helpers. 5. **User-Controllable Input**: The
`num_params` value comes directly from user space through ioctl calls,
making this a user-triggerable condition. 6. **Clear Security Impact**:
While the commit states "no security consequences because kcalloc()
implicitly checks for wrapping," this is defense-in-depth - the size
validation should not rely on downstream allocation checks. The fix
pattern exactly matches Similar Commit #4 (mm/gup_benchmark.c) which was
backported for preventing integer overflow in size calculations with
user-provided values. This commit follows the same security principle
and uses the same overflow-safe arithmetic helpers that the kernel has
standardized on for these scenarios.
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index 2db144d2d26f3..357944bc73b19 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -16,7 +17,7 @@
#define TEE_NUM_DEVICES 32
-#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x))
+#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (size_mul(sizeof(struct tee_param), (x)))
/*
* Unprivileged devices in the lower half range and privileged devices in
@@ -327,7 +328,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -398,7 +399,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -532,7 +533,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_recv(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -631,7 +632,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx,
get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) > buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.39.5
From: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
[ Upstream commit 39bb67edcc582b3b386a9ec983da67fa8a10ec03 ]
The current code around TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE() is a bit wrong on
32-bit kernels: Multiplying a user-provided 32-bit value with the
size of a structure can wrap around on such platforms.
Fix it by using saturating arithmetic for the size calculation.
This has no security consequences because, in all users of
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(), the subsequent kcalloc() implicitly checks
for wrapping.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org>
Tested-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski(a)linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
**YES** This commit should be backported to stable kernel trees. Here's
my extensive analysis: ## Vulnerability Analysis The commit fixes a real
integer overflow vulnerability in the TEE (Trusted Execution
Environment) subsystem on 32-bit kernels. The issue occurs in the
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE()` macro defined as: ```c #define
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x)) ``` Where
`struct tee_ioctl_param` is 32 bytes (4 × 8-byte fields). On 32-bit
systems, when a user provides a large `num_params` value, the
multiplication `32 * num_params` can wrap around, potentially bypassing
buffer length validation checks. ## Specific Vulnerable Code Locations
The vulnerable pattern appears in 4 locations in
`drivers/tee/tee_core.c`: 1. **Line 490**: `tee_ioctl_open_session()` -
`sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 2.
**Line 568**: `tee_ioctl_invoke()` - `sizeof(arg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 3. **Line 702**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_recv()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len` 4. **Line 801**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_send()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len` ## Attack Scenario On
32-bit systems, if `num_params = 0x08000000` (134,217,728), then: -
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(0x08000000) = 32 * 0x08000000 = 0x100000000` -
This wraps to `0x00000000` on 32-bit systems - The size validation
`sizeof(arg) + 0 != buf.buf_len` could be bypassed - Subsequent
`kcalloc()` would allocate a huge buffer, but the size calculations
would be wrong ## Why This Should Be Backported **Matches "YES" backport
criteria from similar commits:** 1. **Security Fix**: Like Similar
Commit #2 (rtl8188eu security hole) and #4 (gup_benchmark integer
overflow), this prevents user-controlled integer overflow that could
lead to memory corruption. 2. **Small, Contained Change**: The fix uses
the kernel's standard `size_add()` and `size_mul()` helpers from
`linux/overflow.h` - exactly like Similar Commit #3 which was noted as
using `size_add()` for similar protection. 3. **Critical Subsystem**:
TEE handles sensitive cryptographic operations and trusted applications,
making security fixes here particularly important. 4. **Low Regression
Risk**: The fix only adds overflow protection without changing
functionality. The `size_mul()` and `size_add()` functions are well-
tested kernel overflow helpers. 5. **User-Controllable Input**: The
`num_params` value comes directly from user space through ioctl calls,
making this a user-triggerable condition. 6. **Clear Security Impact**:
While the commit states "no security consequences because kcalloc()
implicitly checks for wrapping," this is defense-in-depth - the size
validation should not rely on downstream allocation checks. The fix
pattern exactly matches Similar Commit #4 (mm/gup_benchmark.c) which was
backported for preventing integer overflow in size calculations with
user-provided values. This commit follows the same security principle
and uses the same overflow-safe arithmetic helpers that the kernel has
standardized on for these scenarios.
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index 9cc4a7b63b0d6..e6de0e80b793e 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
#define TEE_NUM_DEVICES 32
-#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x))
+#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (size_mul(sizeof(struct tee_param), (x)))
#define TEE_UUID_NS_NAME_SIZE 128
@@ -492,7 +493,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -570,7 +571,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_recv(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -803,7 +804,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx,
get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) > buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.39.5
From: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
[ Upstream commit 39bb67edcc582b3b386a9ec983da67fa8a10ec03 ]
The current code around TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE() is a bit wrong on
32-bit kernels: Multiplying a user-provided 32-bit value with the
size of a structure can wrap around on such platforms.
Fix it by using saturating arithmetic for the size calculation.
This has no security consequences because, in all users of
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(), the subsequent kcalloc() implicitly checks
for wrapping.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org>
Tested-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski(a)linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
**YES** This commit should be backported to stable kernel trees. Here's
my extensive analysis: ## Vulnerability Analysis The commit fixes a real
integer overflow vulnerability in the TEE (Trusted Execution
Environment) subsystem on 32-bit kernels. The issue occurs in the
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE()` macro defined as: ```c #define
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x)) ``` Where
`struct tee_ioctl_param` is 32 bytes (4 × 8-byte fields). On 32-bit
systems, when a user provides a large `num_params` value, the
multiplication `32 * num_params` can wrap around, potentially bypassing
buffer length validation checks. ## Specific Vulnerable Code Locations
The vulnerable pattern appears in 4 locations in
`drivers/tee/tee_core.c`: 1. **Line 490**: `tee_ioctl_open_session()` -
`sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 2.
**Line 568**: `tee_ioctl_invoke()` - `sizeof(arg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 3. **Line 702**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_recv()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len` 4. **Line 801**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_send()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len` ## Attack Scenario On
32-bit systems, if `num_params = 0x08000000` (134,217,728), then: -
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(0x08000000) = 32 * 0x08000000 = 0x100000000` -
This wraps to `0x00000000` on 32-bit systems - The size validation
`sizeof(arg) + 0 != buf.buf_len` could be bypassed - Subsequent
`kcalloc()` would allocate a huge buffer, but the size calculations
would be wrong ## Why This Should Be Backported **Matches "YES" backport
criteria from similar commits:** 1. **Security Fix**: Like Similar
Commit #2 (rtl8188eu security hole) and #4 (gup_benchmark integer
overflow), this prevents user-controlled integer overflow that could
lead to memory corruption. 2. **Small, Contained Change**: The fix uses
the kernel's standard `size_add()` and `size_mul()` helpers from
`linux/overflow.h` - exactly like Similar Commit #3 which was noted as
using `size_add()` for similar protection. 3. **Critical Subsystem**:
TEE handles sensitive cryptographic operations and trusted applications,
making security fixes here particularly important. 4. **Low Regression
Risk**: The fix only adds overflow protection without changing
functionality. The `size_mul()` and `size_add()` functions are well-
tested kernel overflow helpers. 5. **User-Controllable Input**: The
`num_params` value comes directly from user space through ioctl calls,
making this a user-triggerable condition. 6. **Clear Security Impact**:
While the commit states "no security consequences because kcalloc()
implicitly checks for wrapping," this is defense-in-depth - the size
validation should not rely on downstream allocation checks. The fix
pattern exactly matches Similar Commit #4 (mm/gup_benchmark.c) which was
backported for preventing integer overflow in size calculations with
user-provided values. This commit follows the same security principle
and uses the same overflow-safe arithmetic helpers that the kernel has
standardized on for these scenarios.
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index a44e5b53e7a91..a7e89c229fc51 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
#define TEE_NUM_DEVICES 32
-#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x))
+#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (size_mul(sizeof(struct tee_param), (x)))
#define TEE_UUID_NS_NAME_SIZE 128
@@ -493,7 +494,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -571,7 +572,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -705,7 +706,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_recv(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -804,7 +805,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx,
get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) > buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.39.5
From: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
[ Upstream commit 39bb67edcc582b3b386a9ec983da67fa8a10ec03 ]
The current code around TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE() is a bit wrong on
32-bit kernels: Multiplying a user-provided 32-bit value with the
size of a structure can wrap around on such platforms.
Fix it by using saturating arithmetic for the size calculation.
This has no security consequences because, in all users of
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(), the subsequent kcalloc() implicitly checks
for wrapping.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org>
Tested-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski(a)linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
**YES** This commit should be backported to stable kernel trees. Here's
my extensive analysis: ## Vulnerability Analysis The commit fixes a real
integer overflow vulnerability in the TEE (Trusted Execution
Environment) subsystem on 32-bit kernels. The issue occurs in the
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE()` macro defined as: ```c #define
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x)) ``` Where
`struct tee_ioctl_param` is 32 bytes (4 × 8-byte fields). On 32-bit
systems, when a user provides a large `num_params` value, the
multiplication `32 * num_params` can wrap around, potentially bypassing
buffer length validation checks. ## Specific Vulnerable Code Locations
The vulnerable pattern appears in 4 locations in
`drivers/tee/tee_core.c`: 1. **Line 490**: `tee_ioctl_open_session()` -
`sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 2.
**Line 568**: `tee_ioctl_invoke()` - `sizeof(arg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 3. **Line 702**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_recv()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len` 4. **Line 801**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_send()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len` ## Attack Scenario On
32-bit systems, if `num_params = 0x08000000` (134,217,728), then: -
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(0x08000000) = 32 * 0x08000000 = 0x100000000` -
This wraps to `0x00000000` on 32-bit systems - The size validation
`sizeof(arg) + 0 != buf.buf_len` could be bypassed - Subsequent
`kcalloc()` would allocate a huge buffer, but the size calculations
would be wrong ## Why This Should Be Backported **Matches "YES" backport
criteria from similar commits:** 1. **Security Fix**: Like Similar
Commit #2 (rtl8188eu security hole) and #4 (gup_benchmark integer
overflow), this prevents user-controlled integer overflow that could
lead to memory corruption. 2. **Small, Contained Change**: The fix uses
the kernel's standard `size_add()` and `size_mul()` helpers from
`linux/overflow.h` - exactly like Similar Commit #3 which was noted as
using `size_add()` for similar protection. 3. **Critical Subsystem**:
TEE handles sensitive cryptographic operations and trusted applications,
making security fixes here particularly important. 4. **Low Regression
Risk**: The fix only adds overflow protection without changing
functionality. The `size_mul()` and `size_add()` functions are well-
tested kernel overflow helpers. 5. **User-Controllable Input**: The
`num_params` value comes directly from user space through ioctl calls,
making this a user-triggerable condition. 6. **Clear Security Impact**:
While the commit states "no security consequences because kcalloc()
implicitly checks for wrapping," this is defense-in-depth - the size
validation should not rely on downstream allocation checks. The fix
pattern exactly matches Similar Commit #4 (mm/gup_benchmark.c) which was
backported for preventing integer overflow in size calculations with
user-provided values. This commit follows the same security principle
and uses the same overflow-safe arithmetic helpers that the kernel has
standardized on for these scenarios.
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index 98da206cd7615..a9a893bc19fa4 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
#define TEE_NUM_DEVICES 32
-#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x))
+#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (size_mul(sizeof(struct tee_param), (x)))
#define TEE_UUID_NS_NAME_SIZE 128
@@ -487,7 +488,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -565,7 +566,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -699,7 +700,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_recv(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -798,7 +799,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx,
get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) > buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.39.5
From: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
[ Upstream commit 39bb67edcc582b3b386a9ec983da67fa8a10ec03 ]
The current code around TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE() is a bit wrong on
32-bit kernels: Multiplying a user-provided 32-bit value with the
size of a structure can wrap around on such platforms.
Fix it by using saturating arithmetic for the size calculation.
This has no security consequences because, in all users of
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(), the subsequent kcalloc() implicitly checks
for wrapping.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org>
Tested-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski(a)linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
**YES** This commit should be backported to stable kernel trees. Here's
my extensive analysis: ## Vulnerability Analysis The commit fixes a real
integer overflow vulnerability in the TEE (Trusted Execution
Environment) subsystem on 32-bit kernels. The issue occurs in the
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE()` macro defined as: ```c #define
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x)) ``` Where
`struct tee_ioctl_param` is 32 bytes (4 × 8-byte fields). On 32-bit
systems, when a user provides a large `num_params` value, the
multiplication `32 * num_params` can wrap around, potentially bypassing
buffer length validation checks. ## Specific Vulnerable Code Locations
The vulnerable pattern appears in 4 locations in
`drivers/tee/tee_core.c`: 1. **Line 490**: `tee_ioctl_open_session()` -
`sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 2.
**Line 568**: `tee_ioctl_invoke()` - `sizeof(arg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len` 3. **Line 702**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_recv()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len` 4. **Line 801**:
`tee_ioctl_supp_send()` - `sizeof(*uarg) +
TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len` ## Attack Scenario On
32-bit systems, if `num_params = 0x08000000` (134,217,728), then: -
`TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(0x08000000) = 32 * 0x08000000 = 0x100000000` -
This wraps to `0x00000000` on 32-bit systems - The size validation
`sizeof(arg) + 0 != buf.buf_len` could be bypassed - Subsequent
`kcalloc()` would allocate a huge buffer, but the size calculations
would be wrong ## Why This Should Be Backported **Matches "YES" backport
criteria from similar commits:** 1. **Security Fix**: Like Similar
Commit #2 (rtl8188eu security hole) and #4 (gup_benchmark integer
overflow), this prevents user-controlled integer overflow that could
lead to memory corruption. 2. **Small, Contained Change**: The fix uses
the kernel's standard `size_add()` and `size_mul()` helpers from
`linux/overflow.h` - exactly like Similar Commit #3 which was noted as
using `size_add()` for similar protection. 3. **Critical Subsystem**:
TEE handles sensitive cryptographic operations and trusted applications,
making security fixes here particularly important. 4. **Low Regression
Risk**: The fix only adds overflow protection without changing
functionality. The `size_mul()` and `size_add()` functions are well-
tested kernel overflow helpers. 5. **User-Controllable Input**: The
`num_params` value comes directly from user space through ioctl calls,
making this a user-triggerable condition. 6. **Clear Security Impact**:
While the commit states "no security consequences because kcalloc()
implicitly checks for wrapping," this is defense-in-depth - the size
validation should not rely on downstream allocation checks. The fix
pattern exactly matches Similar Commit #4 (mm/gup_benchmark.c) which was
backported for preventing integer overflow in size calculations with
user-provided values. This commit follows the same security principle
and uses the same overflow-safe arithmetic helpers that the kernel has
standardized on for these scenarios.
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index 0eb342de0b001..d7ad16f262b2e 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
#define TEE_NUM_DEVICES 32
-#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (sizeof(struct tee_param) * (x))
+#define TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(x) (size_mul(sizeof(struct tee_param), (x)))
#define TEE_UUID_NS_NAME_SIZE 128
@@ -487,7 +488,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -565,7 +566,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (copy_from_user(&arg, uarg, sizeof(arg)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(arg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(arg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(arg.num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
if (arg.num_params) {
@@ -699,7 +700,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_recv(struct tee_context *ctx,
if (get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) != buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) != buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -798,7 +799,7 @@ static int tee_ioctl_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx,
get_user(num_params, &uarg->num_params))
return -EFAULT;
- if (sizeof(*uarg) + TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params) > buf.buf_len)
+ if (size_add(sizeof(*uarg), TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_SIZE(num_params)) > buf.buf_len)
return -EINVAL;
params = kcalloc(num_params, sizeof(struct tee_param), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.39.5