2 files changed, 154 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc
index ae43d2a5d2..1311b65847 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\
      file://CVE-2017-9955_9.patch \
      file://CVE-2017-14729.patch \
      file://CVE-2017-15024.patch \
+     file://CVE-2017-15938.patch \
 "
 S  = "${WORKDIR}/git"
 
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-15938.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-15938.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..25d6f3a32a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-15938.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+commit 1b86808a86077722ee4f42ff97f836b12420bb2a
+Author: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
+Date:   Tue Sep 26 21:47:24 2017 +0930
+
+    PR22209, invalid memory read in find_abstract_instance_name
+    
+    This patch adds bounds checking for DW_FORM_ref_addr die refs, and
+    calculates them relative to the first .debug_info section.  See the
+    big comment for why calculating relative to the current .debug_info
+    section was wrong for relocatable object files.
+    
+        PR 22209
+        * dwarf2.c (struct comp_unit): Delete sec_info_ptr field.
+        (find_abstract_instance_name): Calculate DW_FORM_ref_addr relative
+        to stash->info_ptr_memory, and check die_ref is within that memory.
+        Set info_ptr_end correctly when another CU is refd.  Check die_ref
+        for DW_FORM_ref4 etc. is within CU.
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport
+
+CVE: CVE-2017-15938
+Signed-off-by: Thiruvadi Rajaraman <trajaraman@mvista.com>
+
+Index: git/bfd/dwarf2.c
+===================================================================
+--- git.orig/bfd/dwarf2.c       2017-11-07 18:52:19.896253364 +0530
++++ git/bfd/dwarf2.c    2017-11-07 18:52:19.952253802 +0530
+@@ -119,8 +119,7 @@
+ 
+   /* A pointer to the memory block allocated for info_ptr.  Neither
+      info_ptr nor sec_info_ptr are guaranteed to stay pointing to the
+-     beginning of the malloc block.  This is used only to free the
+-     memory later.  */
++     beginning of the malloc block.  */
+   bfd_byte *info_ptr_memory;
+ 
+   /* Pointer to the symbol table.  */
+@@ -238,9 +237,6 @@
+      by its reference.  */
+   bfd_byte *info_ptr_unit;
+ 
+-  /* Pointer to the start of the debug section, for DW_FORM_ref_addr.  */
+-  bfd_byte *sec_info_ptr;
+-
+   /* The offset into .debug_line of the line number table.  */
+   unsigned long line_offset;
+ 
+@@ -2294,21 +2290,37 @@
+   if (attr_ptr->form == DW_FORM_ref_addr)
+     {
+       /* We only support DW_FORM_ref_addr within the same file, so
+-        any relocations should be resolved already.  */
+-      if (!die_ref)
++        any relocations should be resolved already.  Check this by
++        testing for a zero die_ref;  There can't be a valid reference
++        to the header of a .debug_info section.
++        DW_FORM_ref_addr is an offset relative to .debug_info.
++        Normally when using the GNU linker this is accomplished by
++        emitting a symbolic reference to a label, because .debug_info
++        sections are linked at zero.  When there are multiple section
++        groups containing .debug_info, as there might be in a
++        relocatable object file, it would be reasonable to assume that
++        a symbolic reference to a label in any .debug_info section
++        might be used.  Since we lay out multiple .debug_info
++        sections at non-zero VMAs (see place_sections), and read
++        them contiguously into stash->info_ptr_memory, that means
++        the reference is relative to stash->info_ptr_memory.  */
++      size_t total;
++
++      info_ptr = unit->stash->info_ptr_memory;
++      info_ptr_end = unit->stash->info_ptr_end;
++      total = info_ptr_end - info_ptr;
++      if (!die_ref || die_ref >= total)
+        {
+          _bfd_error_handler
+-           (_("Dwarf Error: Abstract instance DIE ref zero."));
++           (_("Dwarf Error: Invalid abstract instance DIE ref."));
+          bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
+          return FALSE;
+        }
+-
+-      info_ptr = unit->sec_info_ptr + die_ref;
+-      info_ptr_end = unit->end_ptr;
++      info_ptr += die_ref;
+ 
+       /* Now find the CU containing this pointer.  */
+       if (info_ptr >= unit->info_ptr_unit && info_ptr < unit->end_ptr)
+-       ;
++       info_ptr_end = unit->end_ptr;
+       else
+        {
+          /* Check other CUs to see if they contain the abbrev.  */
+@@ -2324,7 +2336,10 @@
+                break;
+ 
+          if (u)
+-           unit = u;
++           {
++             unit = u;
++             info_ptr_end = unit->end_ptr;
++           }
+          /* else FIXME: What do we do now ?  */
+        }
+     }
+@@ -2346,8 +2361,22 @@
+     }
+   else
+     {
+-      info_ptr = unit->info_ptr_unit + die_ref;
++      /* DW_FORM_ref1, DW_FORM_ref2, DW_FORM_ref4, DW_FORM_ref8 or
++        DW_FORM_ref_udata.  These are all references relative to the
++        start of the current CU.  */
++      size_t total;
++
++      info_ptr = unit->info_ptr_unit;
+       info_ptr_end = unit->end_ptr;
++      total = info_ptr_end - info_ptr;
++      if (!die_ref || die_ref >= total)
++       {
++         _bfd_error_handler
++           (_("Dwarf Error: Invalid abstract instance DIE ref."));
++         bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
++         return FALSE;
++       }
++      info_ptr += die_ref;
+     }
+ 
+   abbrev_number = safe_read_leb128 (abfd, info_ptr, &bytes_read, FALSE, info_ptr_end);
+@@ -2846,7 +2875,6 @@
+   unit->end_ptr = end_ptr;
+   unit->stash = stash;
+   unit->info_ptr_unit = info_ptr_unit;
+-  unit->sec_info_ptr = stash->sec_info_ptr;
+ 
+   for (i = 0; i < abbrev->num_attrs; ++i)
+     {
+Index: git/bfd/ChangeLog
+===================================================================
+--- git.orig/bfd/ChangeLog      2017-11-07 18:52:19.900253395 +0530
++++ git/bfd/ChangeLog   2017-11-07 18:53:29.668799630 +0530
+@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
++2017-09-26  Alan Modra  <amodra@gmail.com>
++
++       PR 22209
++       * dwarf2.c (struct comp_unit): Delete sec_info_ptr field.
++       (find_abstract_instance_name): Calculate DW_FORM_ref_addr relative
++       to stash->info_ptr_memory, and check die_ref is within that memory.
++       Set info_ptr_end correctly when another CU is refd.  Check die_ref
++       for DW_FORM_ref4 etc. is within CU.
++
+ 2017-09-24  Alan Modra  <amodra@gmail.com>
+ 
+        PR 22187