Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix off-by-one in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix off-by-one in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c

[gregkh]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:29:07AM +0000, Yang Xiao wrote:
> From: Young_X <YangX92@hotmail.com>

Please use your "full" name like you did in your from: line of your
email

> 
>     The error at line 3267 was the result of an off-by-one error in
>     a for loop in line 3253.
>     If condition in line 3254 never satisfies, then the value of
>     pstat->aid is NUM_STA+1. This will lead to out-of-bound access
>     in line 3267.

Why is this indented?  No need for that.

Can you fix that up and resend?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix off-by-one in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c

[Dan Carpenter]

The original code is OK.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:29:07AM +0000, Yang Xiao wrote:
> From: Young_X <YangX92@hotmail.com>
> 
>     The error at line 3267 was the result of an off-by-one error in
>     a for loop in line 3253.
>     If condition in line 3254 never satisfies, then the value of
>     pstat->aid is NUM_STA+1. This will lead to out-of-bound access
>     in line 3267.

It's best to avoid line numbers in the commit message unless you paste
the actual code, because sometimes people will be using different line
numbers from you.

> Signed-off-by: Young_X <YangX92@hotmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> index 6790b840..0854adc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> @@ -3250,7 +3250,7 @@ static unsigned int OnAssocReq(struct adapter *padapter,
>  	if (pstat->aid > 0) {
>  		DBG_88E("  old AID %d\n", pstat->aid);
>  	} else {
> -		for (pstat->aid = 1; pstat->aid <= NUM_STA; pstat->aid++)
> +		for (pstat->aid = 1; pstat->aid < NUM_STA; pstat->aid++)

drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
  3249          /* get a unique AID */
  3250          if (pstat->aid > 0) {
  3251                  DBG_88E("  old AID %d\n", pstat->aid);
  3252          } else {
  3253                  for (pstat->aid = 1; pstat->aid <= NUM_STA; pstat->aid++)
  3254                          if (pstapriv->sta_aid[pstat->aid - 1] == NULL)
  3255                                  break;
  3256  
  3257                  /* if (pstat->aid > NUM_STA) { */
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This comment is key.  pstapriv->max_num_sta is always less than or equal
to NUM_STA.

  3258                  if (pstat->aid > pstapriv->max_num_sta) {
  3259                          pstat->aid = 0;
  3260  
  3261                          DBG_88E("  no room for more AIDs\n");
  3262  
  3263                          status = WLAN_STATUS_AP_UNABLE_TO_HANDLE_NEW_STA;
  3264  
  3265                          goto OnAssocReqFail;
  3266                  } else {
  3267                          pstapriv->sta_aid[pstat->aid - 1] = pstat;
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So this is fine.

  3268                          DBG_88E("allocate new AID=(%d)\n", pstat->aid);
  3269                  }
  3270          }
  3271  

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix off-by-one in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:29:05AM +0000, Yang Xiao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> See commit ef9209b642f ("staging: rtl8723bs: Fix indenting errors and an 
> off-by-one mistake in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c") for detail.
> 
> I don't know how can you make sure that line 3254 can be true in the for 
> loop.  If the condition never satisfies, then there is an off-by-one 
> access in line 3267.
> 
> If you can prove it, then the patch is unnecessary.
> 

Ugh...  Patch ef9209b642f isn't right.  :(

Do you want to send a patch to change that back to the way it was.  If
not then I can do it.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: Fix off-by-one in core/rtw_mlme_ext.c

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:41:53AM +0000, Yang Xiao wrote:
> Okay. I can send a patch to revert ef9209b642f.
> 
> But, can you make sure that the condition "(pstapriv->sta_aid[pstat->aid 
> - 1] == NULL)" can satisfies in the for loop?

->max_num_sta is either set in _rtw_init_sta_priv() or rtw_set_beacon().
You can see that it's <= MAX_STA.

regards,
dan carpenter