From 52bc287aca0fa756c5593cebcb86b7759cf78dd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thiruvadi Rajaraman Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:09:39 +0530 Subject: binutils: CVE-2017-8396 Source: git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git MR: 74101 Type: Security Fix Disposition: Backport from binutils-2_29 ChangeID: db47540066f83529439566f8621d6e35fe86b77c Description: buffer overflow in perform_relocation The existing reloc offset range tests didn't catch small negative offsets less than the size of the reloc field. PR 21432 * reloc.c (reloc_offset_in_range): New function. (bfd_perform_relocation, bfd_install_relocation): Use it. (_bfd_final_link_relocate): Likewise. Affects: <= 2.29 Author: Alan Modra (From OE-Core rev: e5aa4adaddbae184bbbb1c42f79c1deba931c72a) Signed-off-by: Thiruvadi Rajaraman Reviewed-by: Armin Kuster Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie --- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc | 1 + .../binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-8396.patch | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-8396.patch (limited to 'meta/recipes-devtools') diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc index 23aac6bd5e..014655f7df 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.27.inc @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ file://CVE-2017-8395.patch \ file://CVE-2017-8397.patch \ file://CVE-2017-7300.patch \ + file://CVE-2017-8396.patch \ " S = "${WORKDIR}/git" diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-8396.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-8396.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..b1bf92f4dd --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2017-8396.patch @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +commit a941291cab71b9ac356e1c03968c177c03e602ab +Author: Alan Modra +Date: Sat Apr 29 14:48:16 2017 +0930 + + PR21432, buffer overflow in perform_relocation + + The existing reloc offset range tests didn't catch small negative + offsets less than the size of the reloc field. + + PR 21432 + * reloc.c (reloc_offset_in_range): New function. + (bfd_perform_relocation, bfd_install_relocation): Use it. + (_bfd_final_link_relocate): Likewise. + +Upstream-Status: Backport + +CVE: CVE-2017-8396 +Signed-off-by: Thiruvadi Rajaraman + +Index: git/bfd/reloc.c +=================================================================== +--- git.orig/bfd/reloc.c 2017-09-05 18:12:07.448886623 +0530 ++++ git/bfd/reloc.c 2017-09-05 18:12:07.564887511 +0530 +@@ -538,6 +538,22 @@ + return flag; + } + ++/* HOWTO describes a relocation, at offset OCTET. Return whether the ++ relocation field is within SECTION of ABFD. */ ++ ++static bfd_boolean ++reloc_offset_in_range (reloc_howto_type *howto, bfd *abfd, ++ asection *section, bfd_size_type octet) ++{ ++ bfd_size_type octet_end = bfd_get_section_limit_octets (abfd, section); ++ bfd_size_type reloc_size = bfd_get_reloc_size (howto); ++ ++ /* The reloc field must be contained entirely within the section. ++ Allow zero length fields (marker relocs or NONE relocs where no ++ relocation will be performed) at the end of the section. */ ++ return octet <= octet_end && octet + reloc_size <= octet_end; ++} ++ + /* + FUNCTION + bfd_perform_relocation +@@ -618,15 +634,9 @@ + return cont; + } + +- /* Is the address of the relocation really within the section? +- Include the size of the reloc in the test for out of range addresses. +- PR 17512: file: c146ab8b, 46dff27f, 38e53ebf. */ ++ /* Is the address of the relocation really within the section? */ + octets = reloc_entry->address * bfd_octets_per_byte (abfd); +- if (octets + bfd_get_reloc_size (howto) +- > bfd_get_section_limit_octets (abfd, input_section) +- /* Check for an overly large offset which +- masquerades as a negative value too. */ +- || (octets + bfd_get_reloc_size (howto) < bfd_get_reloc_size (howto))) ++ if (!reloc_offset_in_range (howto, abfd, input_section, octets)) + return bfd_reloc_outofrange; + + /* Work out which section the relocation is targeted at and the +@@ -1010,8 +1020,7 @@ + + /* Is the address of the relocation really within the section? */ + octets = reloc_entry->address * bfd_octets_per_byte (abfd); +- if (octets + bfd_get_reloc_size (howto) +- > bfd_get_section_limit_octets (abfd, input_section)) ++ if (!reloc_offset_in_range (howto, abfd, input_section, octets)) + return bfd_reloc_outofrange; + + /* Work out which section the relocation is targeted at and the +@@ -1349,8 +1358,7 @@ + bfd_size_type octets = address * bfd_octets_per_byte (input_bfd); + + /* Sanity check the address. */ +- if (octets + bfd_get_reloc_size (howto) +- > bfd_get_section_limit_octets (input_bfd, input_section)) ++ if (!reloc_offset_in_range (howto, input_bfd, input_section, octets)) + return bfd_reloc_outofrange; + + /* This function assumes that we are dealing with a basic relocation +Index: git/bfd/ChangeLog +=================================================================== +--- git.orig/bfd/ChangeLog 2017-09-05 18:12:07.448886623 +0530 ++++ git/bfd/ChangeLog 2017-09-05 18:13:46.745645897 +0530 +@@ -73,6 +73,13 @@ + (evax_bfd_print_egsd): Check for an overlarge record length. + (evax_bfd_print_etir): Likewise. + ++2017-04-29 Alan Modra ++ ++ PR 21432 ++ * reloc.c (reloc_offset_in_range): New function. ++ (bfd_perform_relocation, bfd_install_relocation): Use it. ++ (_bfd_final_link_relocate): Likewise. ++ + 2017-04-26 Nick Clifton + + PR binutils/21434 -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf