CVE-2017-7645 (published 2017-04-18T14:59Z)

The NFSv2/NFSv3 server in the nfsd subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.10.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (system crash) via a long RPC reply, related to net/sunrpc/svc.c, fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c, and fs/nfsd/nfsxdr.c.

Severity: HIGH
CVSS v2 base score: 7.8 (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C)
CVSS v3 base score: 7.5, HIGH (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

Weakness information:
cwe_id: CWE-20
cwe_name: Improper Input Validation
description: The product receives input or data, but it does
        not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the
        properties that are required to process the data safely and
        correctly.
extended_description: 
	   Input validation is a frequently-used technique
	   for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to
	   ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the
	   code, or when communicating with other components.  When
	   software does not validate input properly, an attacker is
	   able to craft the input in a form that is not expected by
	   the rest of the application. This will lead to parts of the
	   system receiving unintended input, which may result in
	   altered control flow, arbitrary control of a resource, or
	   arbitrary code execution.
	   Input validation is not the only technique for
	   processing input, however.  Other techniques attempt to
	   transform potentially-dangerous input into something safe, such
	   as filtering (CWE-790) - which attempts to remove dangerous
	   inputs - or encoding/escaping (CWE-116), which attempts to
	   ensure that the input is not misinterpreted when it is included
	   in output to another component. Other techniques exist as well
	   (see CWE-138 for more examples.)
	   Input validation can be applied to:
	   
	     raw data - strings, numbers, parameters, file contents, etc.
	     metadata - information about the raw data, such as headers or size
	   
	   Data can be simple or structured.  Structured data
	   can be composed of many nested layers, composed of
	   combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or
	   structured data.
	   Many properties of raw data or metadata may need
	   to be validated upon entry into the code, such
	   as:
	   
	     specified quantities such as size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, etc.
	     implied or derived quantities, such as the actual size of a file instead of a specified size
	     indexes, offsets, or positions into more complex data structures
	     symbolic keys or other elements into hash tables, associative arrays, etc.
	     well-formedness, i.e. syntactic correctness - compliance with expected syntax 
	     lexical token correctness - compliance with rules for what is treated as a token
	     specified or derived type - the actual type of the input (or what the input appears to be)
	     consistency - between individual data elements, between raw data and metadata, between references, etc.
	     conformance to domain-specific rules, e.g. business logic 
	     equivalence - ensuring that equivalent inputs are treated the same
	     authenticity, ownership, or other attestations about the input, e.g. a cryptographic signature to prove the source of the data
	   
	   Implied or derived properties of data must often
	   be calculated or inferred by the code itself.  Errors in
	   deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor
	   to improper input validation.
	   
	   Note that "input validation" has very different
	   meanings to different people, or within different
	   classification schemes.  Caution must be used when
	   referencing this CWE entry or mapping to it.  For example,
	   some weaknesses might involve inadvertently giving control
	   to an attacker over an input when they should not be able
	   to provide an input at all, but sometimes this is referred
	   to as input validation.
	   Finally, it is important to emphasize that the
	   distinctions between input validation and output escaping
	   are often blurred, and developers must be careful to
	   understand the difference, including how input validation
	   is not always sufficient to prevent vulnerabilities,
	   especially when less stringent data types must be
	   supported, such as free-form text. Consider a SQL injection
	   scenario in which a person's last name is inserted into a
	   query. The name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation
	   step since it is a common last name in the English
	   language. However, this valid name cannot be directly
	   inserted into the database because it contains the "'"
	   apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or
	   otherwise transformed. In this case, removing the
	   apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it
	   would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name
	   would be recorded.
       
         

Fix information:
repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
commit_details: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
author: J. Bruce Fields
author_date: 2017-04-21 16:10:18-04:00
msg: nfsd: check for oversized NFSv2/v3 arguments

A client can append random data to the end of an NFSv2 or NFSv3 RPC call
without our complaining; we'll just stop parsing at the end of the
expected data and ignore the rest.

Encoded arguments and replies are stored together in an array of pages,
and if a call is too large it could leave inadequate space for the
reply.  This is normally OK because NFS RPC's typically have either
short arguments and long replies (like READ) or long arguments and short
replies (like WRITE).  But a client that sends an incorrectly long reply
can violate those assumptions.  This was observed to cause crashes.

Also, several operations increment rq_next_page in the decode routine
before checking the argument size, which can leave rq_next_page pointing
well past the end of the page array, causing trouble later in
svc_free_pages.

So, following a suggestion from Neil Brown, add a central check to
enforce our expectation that no NFSv2/v3 call has both a large call and
a large reply.

As followup we may also want to rewrite the encoding routines to check
more carefully that they aren't running off the end of the page array.

We may also consider rejecting calls that have any extra garbage
appended.  That would be safer, and within our rights by spec, but given
the age of our server and the NFS protocol, and the fact that we've
never enforced this before, we may need to balance that against the
possibility of breaking some oddball client.

Reported-by: Tuomas Haanpää <thaan@synopsys.com>
Reported-by: Ari Kauppi <ari@synopsys.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
repository: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
repo_name: torvalds/linux
description: Linux kernel source tree
repo_language: C
owner: torvalds
file_changes: filename: nfssvc.c
change_type: ModificationType.MODIFY
diff: @@ -747,6 +747,37 @@ static __be32 map_new_errors(u32 vers, __be32 nfserr)
 	return nfserr;
 }
 
+/*
+ * A write procedure can have a large argument, and a read procedure can
+ * have a large reply, but no NFSv2 or NFSv3 procedure has argument and
+ * reply that can both be larger than a page.  The xdr code has taken
+ * advantage of this assumption to be a sloppy about bounds checking in
+ * some cases.  Pending a rewrite of the NFSv2/v3 xdr code to fix that
+ * problem, we enforce these assumptions here:
+ */
+static bool nfs_request_too_big(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
+				struct svc_procedure *proc)
+{
+	/*
+	 * The ACL code has more careful bounds-checking and is not
+	 * susceptible to this problem:
+	 */
+	if (rqstp->rq_prog != NFS_PROGRAM)
+		return false;
+	/*
+	 * Ditto NFSv4 (which can in theory have argument and reply both
+	 * more than a page):
+	 */
+	if (rqstp->rq_vers >= 4)
+		return false;
+	/* The reply will be small, we're OK: */
+	if (proc->pc_xdrressize > 0 &&
+	    proc->pc_xdrressize < XDR_QUADLEN(PAGE_SIZE))
+		return false;
+
+	return rqstp->rq_arg.len > PAGE_SIZE;
+}
+
 int
 nfsd_dispatch(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, __be32 *statp)
 {
@@ -759,6 +790,11 @@ nfsd_dispatch(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, __be32 *statp)
 				rqstp->rq_vers, rqstp->rq_proc);
 	proc = rqstp->rq_procinfo;
 
+	if (nfs_request_too_big(rqstp, proc)) {
+		dprintk("nfsd: NFSv%d argument too large\n", rqstp->rq_vers);
+		*statp = rpc_garbage_args;
+		return 1;
+	}
 	/*
 	 * Give the xdr decoder a chance to change this if it wants
 	 * (necessary in the NFSv4.0 compound case)

programming_language: C