From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com ([209.85.128.176]:37745 "EHLO mail-wr0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751089AbdILH7J (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:59:09 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id k20so18809645wre.4 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] brcmfmac: Avoid possible out-of-bounds read To: Kalle Valo References: <20170909193020.19061-1-cernekee@chromium.org> <87tw08mpq1.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <59B78E94.5040909@broadcom.com> <87o9qgicju.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: Kevin Cernekee , franky.lin@broadcom.com, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, mnissler@chromium.org From: Arend van Spriel Message-ID: <59B793C9.2030103@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170912_095913_246580_94700B91) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:59:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o9qgicju.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 9/12/2017 9:47 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Arend van Spriel writes: > >> On 9/12/2017 7:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Arend van Spriel writes: >>> >>>> On 09-09-17 21:30, Kevin Cernekee wrote: >>>>> In brcmf_p2p_notify_rx_mgmt_p2p_probereq(), chanspec is assigned before >>>>> the length of rxframe is validated. This could lead to uninitialized >>>>> data being accessed (but not printed). Since we already have a >>>>> perfectly good endian-swapped copy of rxframe->chanspec in ch.chspec, >>>>> and ch.chspec is not modified by decchspec(), avoid the extra >>>>> assignment and use ch.chspec in the debug print. >>>>> >>>>> Suggested-by: Mattias Nissler >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Cernekee >>>>> Reviewed-by: Arend van Spriel >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c | 3 +-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> V1->V2: Clarify changelog re: whether the uninitialized data is printed. >>>> >>>> This patch and the others in this series look fine to me. >>> >>> Should these go to v4.14? >> >> I have no strong opinion. These are certainly improvements, but it >> does not seem an -rc fix to me. Within this series I would say patch >> 3/3 adds an additional sanity check in the event processing against an >> attack so you may consider adding just that one to v4.14 > > Ok, I'll queue patch 3 to v4.14. > >> and tag it for stable, ie.: >> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.8.x > > But why v3.8.x? I admit that I haven't fully figured out the stable tags > yet, but doesn't that mean that it will be only applied to v3.8.x and > nothing else? I was expecting it to be: > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.8+ > It is actually in the stable-kernel-rules documentation [1]: """ Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites. This can be specified in the following format in the sign-off area: .. code-block:: none Cc: # 3.3.x The tag has the meaning of: .. code-block:: none git cherry-pick For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version. """ The event handling code was added in v3.8. Regards, Arend [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html