Re: [PATCH v2] audit: fix potential integer overflow in audit_log_n_hex()
Paul Moore <[email protected]> Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:46:50 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.audit,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jun 1, 2026 Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]> wrote: > > The function calculates new_len as len << 1 for hex encoding. This > has two overflow risks: the shift itself can overflow when len is > large, and the result can be truncated when assigned to new_len > (declared as int) from the size_t calculation. > > Fix by using check_shl_overflow() to catch shift overflow and > changing new_len and loop counter i to size_t to prevent truncation. > > Fixes: 168b7173959f ("AUDIT: Clean up logging of untrusted strings") > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Use check_shl_overflow() instead of manual overflow check. > > kernel/audit.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index e1d489bc2dff..8ca268610641 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ > #include <net/ip.h> > #include <net/ipv6.h> > #include <linux/sctp.h> > +#include <linux/overflow.h> > > #include "audit.h" > > @@ -2076,7 +2077,8 @@ void audit_log_format(struct audit_buffer *ab, const char *fmt, ...) > void audit_log_n_hex(struct audit_buffer *ab, const unsigned char *buf, > size_t len) > { > - int i, avail, new_len; > + int avail; > + size_t i, new_len; > unsigned char *ptr; > struct sk_buff *skb; > > @@ -2084,9 +2086,13 @@ void audit_log_n_hex(struct audit_buffer *ab, const unsigned char *buf, > return; > > BUG_ON(!ab->skb); > + > skb = ab->skb; > avail = skb_tailroom(skb); > - new_len = len<<1; > + > + if (check_shl_overflow(len, 1, &new_len)) > + return; By returning without logging a value I worry we could end up with an oddly formatted audit record, e.g. "... A=foo B= C=bar ...". Instead of simply returning, should we log a '?' for the value and then return? > if (new_len >= avail) { > /* Round the buffer request up to the next multiple */ > new_len = AUDIT_BUFSIZ*(((new_len-avail)/AUDIT_BUFSIZ) + 1); > -- > 2.53.0 -- paul-moore.com