netdev - Re: WARNING in rfkill

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:11:42 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+1ddfb3357e1d7bb5b5d3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: WARNING in rfkill_alloc

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 10:12 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>> However, there can be some surprising things, for example, executing
>> one ioctl/setsockopt with data meant for another one, or these
>> 0xffffffffffffffff are actually mean 0 (for involved reasons),
>
> I think those fff was actually what was throwing me off.
>
>> or we
>> can simply have bugs in these descriptions so they don't match C
>> structures and then all data is messed/shifted.
>
> No, I think this part was OK.
>
>> If this representation does not make sense to you right away, your
>> best bet is looking at/running the C reproducer where you can see true
>> data layout:
>>
>>
> [...]
> Yeah, good point, I should've just done that.
>
>> > Ah, then again, now I see the fault injection - I guess dev_set_name()
>> > just failed and we didn't check the return value, will fix that.
>>
>> Yes, it's highly likely the root cause. The raw.log file shows there
>> there was an immediately preceding fault in kmalloc in the same
>> process, in a close stack.
>
> Yep, I submitted the fix now (with the correct reported-by).
>
> Also for the other one, the wiphy_register() warning.

Thanks!