binutils: fix CVE-2019-17450

Backport upstream fix. No upstream release version of
binutils it yet, so backport the fix independently.

(From OE-Core rev: a4ead72b958ded4941f96741029f4955930ba758)

(From OE-Core rev: 8b33aeb4122be31b2aed29e40dcac01ea4643b63)

Signed-off-by: Trevor Gamblin <trevor.gamblin@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Anuj Mittal <anuj.mittal@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

2 files changed, 100 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.32.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.32.inc
index 19baf8a883..1e96cf494d 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.32.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.32.inc
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\
      file://CVE-2019-12972.patch \
      file://CVE-2019-14250.patch \
      file://CVE-2019-14444.patch \
+     file://CVE-2019-17450.patch \
 "
 S  = "${WORKDIR}/git"
 
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2019-17450.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2019-17450.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a6ce0b9a8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/CVE-2019-17450.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+From 09dd135df9ebc7a4b640537e23e26a03a288a789 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
+Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 00:07:29 +1030
+Subject: [PATCH] PR25078, stack overflow in function find_abstract_instance
+
+Selectively backporting fix for bfd/dwarf2.c, but not the ChangeLog
+file. There are newer versions of binutils, but none of them contain the
+commit fixing CVE-2019-17450, so backport it to master and zeus.
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=063c511bd79]
+CVE: CVE-2019-17450
+Signed-off-by: Trevor Gamblin <trevor.gamblin@windriver.com>
+
+        PR 25078
+        * dwarf2.c (find_abstract_instance): Delete orig_info_ptr, add
+        recur_count.  Error on recur_count reaching 100 rather than
+        info_ptr matching orig_info_ptr.  Adjust calls.
+
+---
+ bfd/dwarf2.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++------------------
+ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/bfd/dwarf2.c b/bfd/dwarf2.c
+index 0b4e485582..20ec9e2e56 100644
+--- a/bfd/dwarf2.c
++++ b/bfd/dwarf2.c
+@@ -2803,13 +2803,13 @@ lookup_symbol_in_variable_table (struct comp_unit *unit,
+ }
+ 
+ static bfd_boolean
+-find_abstract_instance (struct comp_unit *   unit,
+-                       bfd_byte *           orig_info_ptr,
+-                       struct attribute *   attr_ptr,
+-                       const char **        pname,
+-                       bfd_boolean *        is_linkage,
+-                       char **              filename_ptr,
+-                       int *                linenumber_ptr)
++find_abstract_instance (struct comp_unit *unit,
++                       struct attribute *attr_ptr,
++                       unsigned int recur_count,
++                       const char **pname,
++                       bfd_boolean *is_linkage,
++                       char **filename_ptr,
++                       int *linenumber_ptr)
+ {
+   bfd *abfd = unit->abfd;
+   bfd_byte *info_ptr;
+@@ -2820,6 +2820,14 @@ find_abstract_instance (struct comp_unit *   unit,
+   struct attribute attr;
+   const char *name = NULL;
+ 
++  if (recur_count == 100)
++    {
++      _bfd_error_handler
++       (_("DWARF error: abstract instance recursion detected"));
++      bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
++      return FALSE;
++    }
++
+   /* DW_FORM_ref_addr can reference an entry in a different CU. It
+      is an offset from the .debug_info section, not the current CU.  */
+   if (attr_ptr->form == DW_FORM_ref_addr)
+@@ -2939,15 +2947,6 @@ find_abstract_instance (struct comp_unit *   unit,
+                                         info_ptr, info_ptr_end);
+              if (info_ptr == NULL)
+                break;
+-             /* It doesn't ever make sense for DW_AT_specification to
+-                refer to the same DIE.  Stop simple recursion.  */
+-             if (info_ptr == orig_info_ptr)
+-               {
+-                 _bfd_error_handler
+-                   (_("DWARF error: abstract instance recursion detected"));
+-                 bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
+-                 return FALSE;
+-               }
+              switch (attr.name)
+                {
+                case DW_AT_name:
+@@ -2961,7 +2960,7 @@ find_abstract_instance (struct comp_unit *   unit,
+                    }
+                  break;
+                case DW_AT_specification:
+-                 if (!find_abstract_instance (unit, info_ptr, &attr,
++                 if (!find_abstract_instance (unit, &attr, recur_count + 1,
+                                               &name, is_linkage,
+                                               filename_ptr, linenumber_ptr))
+                    return FALSE;
+@@ -3175,7 +3174,7 @@ scan_unit_for_symbols (struct comp_unit *unit)
+ 
+                case DW_AT_abstract_origin:
+                case DW_AT_specification:
+-                 if (!find_abstract_instance (unit, info_ptr, &attr,
++                 if (!find_abstract_instance (unit, &attr, 0,
+                                               &func->name,
+                                               &func->is_linkage,
+                                               &func->file,
+-- 
+2.23.0
+