Re: [PATCH] wifi: iwlwifi: dvm: Add struct_group for struct iwl_keyinfo keys

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:34:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  	case WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_TKIP:
> > > >  		key_flags |= STA_KEY_FLG_TKIP;
> > > >  		sta_cmd.key.tkip_rx_tsc_byte2 = tkip_iv32;
> > > >  		for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> > > >  			sta_cmd.key.tkip_rx_ttak[i] = cpu_to_le16(tkip_p1k[i]);
> > > > -		memcpy(sta_cmd.key.key, keyconf->key, keyconf->keylen);
> > > > +		memcpy(&sta_cmd.key.keys, keyconf->key, keyconf->keylen);
> > > 
> > > And that's actually a bug, we should've copied only 16 bytes, I guess.
> > > DVM didn't support MIC offload anyway (at least the way Linux uses the
> > > firmware, though I thought it doesn't at all), so we don't need the MIC
> > > RX/TX keys in there, but anyway the sequence counter values are not part
> > > of the key material on the host.
> > > 
> > > I don't think I have a machine now to test this with (nor a TKIP AP, of
> > > course, but that could be changed) - but I suspect that since we
> > > actually calculate the TTAK above, we might not even need this memcpy()
> > > at all?
> > 
> > It's the latter that is triggered in the real world, though. See the
> > referenced URL and also now on bugzilla:
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217214
> > i.e.: drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/sta.c:1103
> > 
> > So keyconf->keylen is coming in as 32. If this is a bug, I'm not sure
> > where/how to fix it.
> 
> Yes, I know it's coming in as such - I believe it should be copying 16
> bytes instead of the full keylen. TKIP keys are comprised of 16 bytes
> encryption/decryption key and 8 bytes TX/RX MIC keys for a total of 32,
> but since the device doesn't do MIC calculations, it only needs the
> first 16 bytes here (if even that, since we also give it the P1K which
> is derived from the TK...? maybe not even that)
> 
> But I guess we should test it ... not sure I still have a machine that
> takes these NICs (I do have NICs).

What sort of patch would you like here? How should the other cases in
the switch statement behave?

Are these the correct bounds?

	WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP:   keylen <= 16
	WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_TKIP:   keylen <= 16
	WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_WEP104: keylen <= 13
	WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_WEP40:  keylen <= 13

and should it silently ignore larger values in each case?

-- 
Kees Cook