forked from Minki/linux
initramfs: Check timestamp to prevent broken cpio archive
Cpio format reserves 8 bytes for an ASCII representation of a time_t timestamp. While 2106-02-07 06:28:15 UTC (time_t = 0xffffffff) is still some years in the future, a poorly chosen date string for KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP, converted into seconds since the epoch, might lead to exceeded cpio timestamp limits that result in a broken cpio archive. Add timestamp checks to prevent overrun of the 8-byte cpio header field. My colleague Thomas Kühnel discovered the behaviour, when we accidentally fed SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP as is: some timestamps (e.g. 1607420928 = 2021-12-08 9:48:48 UTC) will be interpreted by `date` as a valid date specification of science fictional times (here: year 160742). Even though this is bad input for KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP, it should not break the initramfs cpio format. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu> Cc: Thomas Kühnel <thomas.kuehnel@avm.de> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6947fd96ae
commit
4c9d410f32
@ -320,6 +320,12 @@ static int cpio_mkfile(const char *name, const char *location,
|
||||
goto error;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (buf.st_mtime > 0xffffffff) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "%s: Timestamp exceeds maximum cpio timestamp, clipping.\n",
|
||||
location);
|
||||
buf.st_mtime = 0xffffffff;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
filebuf = malloc(buf.st_size);
|
||||
if (!filebuf) {
|
||||
fprintf (stderr, "out of memory\n");
|
||||
@ -551,6 +557,16 @@ int main (int argc, char *argv[])
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Timestamps after 2106-02-07 06:28:15 UTC have an ascii hex time_t
|
||||
* representation that exceeds 8 chars and breaks the cpio header
|
||||
* specification.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (default_mtime > 0xffffffff) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: Timestamp too large for cpio format\n");
|
||||
exit(1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (argc - optind != 1) {
|
||||
usage(argv[0]);
|
||||
exit(1);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user