* [PATCH for-4.11 1/2] brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual interface
2017-03-28 8:11 [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Arend van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 8:11 ` Arend van Spriel
2017-03-30 16:44 ` [for-4.11, " Kalle Valo
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 11:59 ` [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Kalle Valo
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Arend van Spriel @ 2017-03-28 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman, Arend van Spriel
A use-after-free was found using KASAN. In brcmf_p2p_del_if() the virtual
interface is removed using call to brcmf_remove_interface(). After that
the virtual interface instance has been freed and should not be referenced.
Solve this by storing the nl80211 iftype in local variable, which is used
in a couple of places anyway.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.10.x, 4.9.x
Reported-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@quora.org>
Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <franky.lin@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c
index de19c7c..85d949e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c
@@ -2238,14 +2238,16 @@ int brcmf_p2p_del_vif(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg = wiphy_priv(wiphy);
struct brcmf_p2p_info *p2p = &cfg->p2p;
struct brcmf_cfg80211_vif *vif;
+ enum nl80211_iftype iftype;
bool wait_for_disable = false;
int err;
brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "delete P2P vif\n");
vif = container_of(wdev, struct brcmf_cfg80211_vif, wdev);
+ iftype = vif->wdev.iftype;
brcmf_cfg80211_arm_vif_event(cfg, vif);
- switch (vif->wdev.iftype) {
+ switch (iftype) {
case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT:
if (test_bit(BRCMF_VIF_STATUS_DISCONNECTING, &vif->sme_state))
wait_for_disable = true;
@@ -2275,7 +2277,7 @@ int brcmf_p2p_del_vif(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
BRCMF_P2P_DISABLE_TIMEOUT);
err = 0;
- if (vif->wdev.iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE) {
+ if (iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE) {
brcmf_vif_clear_mgmt_ies(vif);
err = brcmf_p2p_release_p2p_if(vif);
}
@@ -2291,7 +2293,7 @@ int brcmf_p2p_del_vif(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
brcmf_remove_interface(vif->ifp, true);
brcmf_cfg80211_arm_vif_event(cfg, NULL);
- if (vif->wdev.iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE)
+ if (iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE)
p2p->bss_idx[P2PAPI_BSSCFG_CONNECTION].vif = NULL;
return err;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 8:11 [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 1/2] brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual interface Arend van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 8:11 ` Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 12:34 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-29 7:13 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-28 11:59 ` [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Kalle Valo
2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Arend van Spriel @ 2017-03-28 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman, Arend van Spriel
We got the following use-after-free KASAN report:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in wiphy_resume+0x591/0x5a0 [cfg80211]
at addr ffff8803fc244090
Read of size 8 by task kworker/u16:24/2587
CPU: 6 PID: 2587 Comm: kworker/u16:24 Tainted: G B 4.9.13-debug+
Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS 15 9550/0N7TVV, BIOS 1.2.19 12/22/2016
Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn
ffff880425d4f9d8 ffffffffaeedb541 ffff88042b80ef00 ffff8803fc244088
ffff880425d4fa00 ffffffffae84d7a1 ffff880425d4fa98 ffff8803fc244080
ffff88042b80ef00 ffff880425d4fa88 ffffffffae84da3a ffffffffc141f7d9
Call Trace:
[<ffffffffaeedb541>] dump_stack+0x85/0xc4
[<ffffffffae84d7a1>] kasan_object_err+0x21/0x70
[<ffffffffae84da3a>] kasan_report_error+0x1fa/0x500
[<ffffffffc141f7d9>] ? cfg80211_bss_age+0x39/0xc0 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffc141f83a>] ? cfg80211_bss_age+0x9a/0xc0 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffae48d46d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[<ffffffffc13fb1c0>] ? wiphy_suspend+0xc70/0xc70 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffae84def1>] __asan_report_load8_noabort+0x61/0x70
[<ffffffffc13fb100>] ? wiphy_suspend+0xbb0/0xc70 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffc13fb751>] ? wiphy_resume+0x591/0x5a0 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffc13fb751>] wiphy_resume+0x591/0x5a0 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffc13fb1c0>] ? wiphy_suspend+0xc70/0xc70 [cfg80211]
[<ffffffffaf3b206e>] dpm_run_callback+0x6e/0x4f0
[<ffffffffaf3b31b2>] device_resume+0x1c2/0x670
[<ffffffffaf3b367d>] async_resume+0x1d/0x50
[<ffffffffae3ee84e>] async_run_entry_fn+0xfe/0x610
[<ffffffffae3d0666>] process_one_work+0x716/0x1a50
[<ffffffffae3d05c9>] ? process_one_work+0x679/0x1a50
[<ffffffffafdd7b6d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x3d/0x60
[<ffffffffae3cff50>] ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x2b0/0x2b0
[<ffffffffae3d1a80>] worker_thread+0xe0/0x1460
[<ffffffffae3d19a0>] ? process_one_work+0x1a50/0x1a50
[<ffffffffae3e54c2>] kthread+0x222/0x2e0
[<ffffffffae3e52a0>] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffffae3e52a0>] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffffae3e52a0>] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffffafdd86aa>] ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x40
Object at ffff8803fc244088, in cache kmalloc-1024 size: 1024
Allocated:
PID = 71
save_stack_trace+0x1b/0x20
save_stack+0x46/0xd0
kasan_kmalloc+0xad/0xe0
kasan_slab_alloc+0x12/0x20
__kmalloc_track_caller+0x134/0x360
kmemdup+0x20/0x50
brcmf_cfg80211_attach+0x10b/0x3a90 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_bus_start+0x19a/0x9a0 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_pcie_setup+0x1f1a/0x3680 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done+0x44c/0x11b0 [brcmfmac]
request_firmware_work_func+0x135/0x280
process_one_work+0x716/0x1a50
worker_thread+0xe0/0x1460
kthread+0x222/0x2e0
ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x40
Freed:
PID = 2568
save_stack_trace+0x1b/0x20
save_stack+0x46/0xd0
kasan_slab_free+0x71/0xb0
kfree+0xe8/0x2e0
brcmf_cfg80211_detach+0x62/0xf0 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_detach+0x14a/0x2b0 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_pcie_remove+0x140/0x5d0 [brcmfmac]
brcmf_pcie_pm_leave_D3+0x198/0x2e0 [brcmfmac]
pci_pm_resume+0x186/0x220
dpm_run_callback+0x6e/0x4f0
device_resume+0x1c2/0x670
async_resume+0x1d/0x50
async_run_entry_fn+0xfe/0x610
process_one_work+0x716/0x1a50
worker_thread+0xe0/0x1460
kthread+0x222/0x2e0
ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x40
Memory state around the buggy address:
ffff8803fc243f80: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc
ffff8803fc244000: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc
>ffff8803fc244080: fc fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
^
ffff8803fc244100: fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
ffff8803fc244180: fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
What is happening is that brcmf_pcie_resume() detects a device that
is no longer responsive and it decides to unbind resulting in a
wiphy_unregister() and wiphy_free() call. Now the wiphy instance
remains allocated, because PM needs to call wiphy_resume() for it.
However, brcmfmac already does a kfree() for the struct
cfg80211_registered_device::ops field. Changing the checks in
wiphy_resume() to only access the struct cfg80211_registered_device::ops
when the wiphy instance is registered.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.10.x, 4.9.x
Reported-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@quora.org>
Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <franky.lin@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
---
net/wireless/sysfs.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/wireless/sysfs.c b/net/wireless/sysfs.c
index 16b6b59..570a2b6 100644
--- a/net/wireless/sysfs.c
+++ b/net/wireless/sysfs.c
@@ -132,12 +132,10 @@ static int wiphy_resume(struct device *dev)
/* Age scan results with time spent in suspend */
cfg80211_bss_age(rdev, get_seconds() - rdev->suspend_at);
- if (rdev->ops->resume) {
- rtnl_lock();
- if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
- ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
- rtnl_unlock();
- }
+ rtnl_lock();
+ if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
+ ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
+ rtnl_unlock();
return ret;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy Arend van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 12:34 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-28 14:13 ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-03-29 7:13 ` Johannes Berg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-03-28 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend van Spriel, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
> Changing the checks in
> wiphy_resume() to only access the struct
> cfg80211_registered_device::ops
> when the wiphy instance is registered.
[...]
> +++ b/net/wireless/sysfs.c
> @@ -132,12 +132,10 @@ static int wiphy_resume(struct device *dev)
> /* Age scan results with time spent in suspend */
> cfg80211_bss_age(rdev, get_seconds() - rdev->suspend_at);
>
> - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
> - rtnl_lock();
> - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
> - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> - rtnl_unlock();
> - }
> + rtnl_lock();
> + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
> + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> + rtnl_unlock();
Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 12:34 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2017-03-28 14:13 ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-03-28 14:25 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Arend Van Spriel @ 2017-03-28 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
On 28-3-2017 14:34, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> Changing the checks in
>> wiphy_resume() to only access the struct
>> cfg80211_registered_device::ops
>> when the wiphy instance is registered.
>
> [...]
>
>> +++ b/net/wireless/sysfs.c
>> @@ -132,12 +132,10 @@ static int wiphy_resume(struct device *dev)
>> /* Age scan results with time spent in suspend */
>> cfg80211_bss_age(rdev, get_seconds() - rdev->suspend_at);
>>
>> - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
>> - rtnl_lock();
>> - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
>> - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>> - rtnl_unlock();
>> - }
>> + rtnl_lock();
>> + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
>> + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>
> Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before checking
rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no longer
access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a wiphy_unregister()
can safely kfree() the callback struct after it.
Regards,
Arend
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 14:13 ` Arend Van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 14:25 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-28 14:46 ` Arend Van Spriel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-03-28 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend Van Spriel, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
> > > - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
> > > - rtnl_lock();
> > > - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
> > > - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> > > - rtnl_unlock();
> > > - }
> > > + rtnl_lock();
> > > + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
> > > + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> > > + rtnl_unlock();
> >
> > Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
>
> Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before checking
> rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no
> longer access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a
> wiphy_unregister() can safely kfree() the callback struct after it.
Oh, right. Looks like I misinterpreted things.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 14:25 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2017-03-28 14:46 ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-03-29 6:34 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Arend Van Spriel @ 2017-03-28 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
On 28-3-2017 16:25, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>>>> - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
>>>> - rtnl_lock();
>>>> - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
>>>> - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>>>> - rtnl_unlock();
>>>> - }
>>>> + rtnl_lock();
>>>> + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
>>>> + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>>>> + rtnl_unlock();
>>>
>>> Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
>>
>> Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before checking
>> rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no
>> longer access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a
>> wiphy_unregister() can safely kfree() the callback struct after it.
>
> Oh, right. Looks like I misinterpreted things.
So apparently my choice of words was poor. Do you want me to rephrase?
Regards,
Arend
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 14:46 ` Arend Van Spriel
@ 2017-03-29 6:34 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-03-29 6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend Van Spriel, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 16:46 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>
> On 28-3-2017 16:25, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > > > > - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
> > > > > - rtnl_lock();
> > > > > - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
> > > > > - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> > > > > - rtnl_unlock();
> > > > > - }
> > > > > + rtnl_lock();
> > > > > + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
> > > > > + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
> > > > > + rtnl_unlock();
> > > >
> > > > Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
> > >
> > > Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before
> > > checking
> > > rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no
> > > longer access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a
> > > wiphy_unregister() can safely kfree() the callback struct after
> > > it.
> >
> > Oh, right. Looks like I misinterpreted things.
>
> So apparently my choice of words was poor. Do you want me to
> rephrase?
Nah, don't worry. When I apply it I'll re-read and see if I just
confused myself or if it makes sense to reword a bit.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 12:34 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2017-03-29 7:13 ` Johannes Berg
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-03-29 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend van Spriel, Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 09:11 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> We got the following use-after-free KASAN report:
>
[...]
Applied.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports
2017-03-28 8:11 [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 1/2] brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual interface Arend van Spriel
2017-03-28 8:11 ` [PATCH for-4.11 2/2] cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy Arend van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 11:59 ` Kalle Valo
2017-03-28 14:08 ` Arend Van Spriel
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kalle Valo @ 2017-03-28 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend van Spriel; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
> Two use-after-free issues were found using KASAN and reported by
> Daniel J Blueman. One of them was submitted as patch. However, no
> response came upon my comments. So decided to push the fixes myself.
>
> These patches are intended for v4.11 and apply to the master branch of
> the wireless-drivers repository.
>
> Arend van Spriel (2):
> brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual
> interface
> cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
>
> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c | 8 +++++---
> net/wireless/sysfs.c | 10 ++++------
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Why are these in the same patchset, are there any dependencies etc? Or
is it safe that Johannes applies the cfg80211 patch to mac80211.git and
I apply brcmfmac to wireless-drivers.git?
--
Kalle Valo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports
2017-03-28 11:59 ` [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports Kalle Valo
@ 2017-03-28 14:08 ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-03-28 15:00 ` Kalle Valo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Arend Van Spriel @ 2017-03-28 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kalle Valo; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
On 28-3-2017 13:59, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
>
>> Two use-after-free issues were found using KASAN and reported by
>> Daniel J Blueman. One of them was submitted as patch. However, no
>> response came upon my comments. So decided to push the fixes myself.
>>
>> These patches are intended for v4.11 and apply to the master branch of
>> the wireless-drivers repository.
>>
>> Arend van Spriel (2):
>> brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual
>> interface
>> cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
>>
>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c | 8 +++++---
>> net/wireless/sysfs.c | 10 ++++------
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Why are these in the same patchset, are there any dependencies etc? Or
> is it safe that Johannes applies the cfg80211 patch to mac80211.git and
> I apply brcmfmac to wireless-drivers.git?
Yeah. My bad. I just realized while driving to pick up my son from
school :-p Anyway, these are in the same patchset just because of their
context and independent so you both can apply them in their respective
repository.
Regards,
Arend
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] brcmfmac: fixing use-after-free reports
2017-03-28 14:08 ` Arend Van Spriel
@ 2017-03-28 15:00 ` Kalle Valo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kalle Valo @ 2017-03-28 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend Van Spriel; +Cc: linux-wireless, Daniel J Blueman
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
> On 28-3-2017 13:59, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
>>
>>> Two use-after-free issues were found using KASAN and reported by
>>> Daniel J Blueman. One of them was submitted as patch. However, no
>>> response came upon my comments. So decided to push the fixes myself.
>>>
>>> These patches are intended for v4.11 and apply to the master branch of
>>> the wireless-drivers repository.
>>>
>>> Arend van Spriel (2):
>>> brcmfmac: use local iftype avoiding use-after-free of virtual
>>> interface
>>> cfg80211: check rdev resume callback only for registered wiphy
>>>
>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c | 8 +++++---
>>> net/wireless/sysfs.c | 10 ++++------
>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> Why are these in the same patchset, are there any dependencies etc? Or
>> is it safe that Johannes applies the cfg80211 patch to mac80211.git and
>> I apply brcmfmac to wireless-drivers.git?
>
> Yeah. My bad. I just realized while driving to pick up my son from
> school :-p
Hehe, that has happened to me also :)
> Anyway, these are in the same patchset just because of their context
> and independent so you both can apply them in their respective
> repository.
Ok, we'll take them separately. Thanks.
--
Kalle Valo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread