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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:06:58 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
 Manikanta Pubbisetty <quic_mpubbise@...cinc.com>
Cc: ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC - is this a bug?] wifi: ath10k: Asking for some light on
 this, please :)

[+CC Manikanta Pubbisetty ]

As Johannes[1] pointed out, this `memset()` is probably unnecessary:

./drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
8920         memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd));

However, the same exact issue[2] is present at the line below inside
function `ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb()`:

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
1799         memset(skb->data, 0, round_len);


Thanks
--
Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/26b15f4702cef17fe70b496a62f03735874bd16a.camel@sipsolutions.net/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/07e9bb04-f9fc-46d5-bfb9-a00a63a707c0@embeddedor.com/

On 10/24/23 13:50, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> While working on tranforming one-element array `peer_chan_list` in
> `struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities` into a flex-array member
> 
> 7187 struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities {
> ...
> 7199         struct wmi_channel peer_chan_list[1];
> 7200 } __packed;
> 
> the following line caught my attention:
> 
> ./drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
> 8920         memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd));
> 
> Notice that before the flex-array transformation, we are zeroing 128
> bytes in `skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 128`, see below:
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
>      __le32                     vdev_id;              /*     0     4 */
>      struct wmi_mac_addr        peer_macaddr;         /*     4     8 */
>      __le32                     peer_state;           /*    12     4 */
>      __le32                     reserved[4];          /*    16    16 */
>      struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab;    /*    32    96 */
> 
>      /* size: 128, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
> };
> 
> So, after the flex-array transformation (and the necessary adjustments
> to a few other lines of code) we would be zeroing 104 bytes in
> `skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 104`, see below:
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
>      __le32                     vdev_id;              /*     0     4 */
>      struct wmi_mac_addr        peer_macaddr;         /*     4     8 */
>      __le32                     peer_state;           /*    12     4 */
>      __le32                     reserved[4];          /*    16    16 */
>      struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab;    /*    32    72 */
> 
>      /* size: 104, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
>      /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
> };
> 
> This difference arises because the size of the element type for the
> `peer_chan_list` array, which is `sizeof(struct wmi_channel) == 24 `
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_channel drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_channel {
>      __le32                     mhz;                  /*     0     4 */
>      __le32                     band_center_freq1;    /*     4     4 */
>      __le32                     band_center_freq2;    /*     8     4 */
> 
> [..]
>                                                 /*    20     4 */
> 
>      /* size: 24, cachelines: 1, members: 6 */
>      /* last cacheline: 24 bytes */
> };
> 
> is included in `sizeof(*cmd)` before the transformation.
> 
> So, my question is: do we really need to zero out those extra 24 bytes in
> `skb->data`? or is it rather a bug in the original code?
> 
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Gustavo
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists