linux-kernel - Re: [TIP] BUG kmalloc-4096: Poison overwritten (ath5k_rx_skb

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]

Message-ID: <40f31dec0902230820u1f1b27cu94d1774d698ebca6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:20:59 +0200
From:	Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@...il.com>
To:	pat-lkml@...ey.org
Cc:	Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	ath5k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>
Subject: Re: [TIP] BUG kmalloc-4096: Poison overwritten (ath5k_rx_skb_alloc)

2009/2/23  <pat-lkml@...ey.org>:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:03:16 +0200, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@...il.com>
> wrote:
>> 2009/2/23 Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>:
>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:20:50 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote
>>>> On 22.2.2009 22:56, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> > Well, maybe we should try to reproduce with jumbo packets sent to the
>>>> > ath5k receiver, since I think it (1) is not very much test-covered
>>>> > code
>>>> > (2) appears to be related.
>>>>
>>>> According to the spec I have for older chip, there is not `done' flag
>>>> set for descriptors which have `more' flag set. We handle this wrongly.
>>>> Am I looking correctly, Nick, Luis, Bob?
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see what could have caused this though.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, yes, we don't do the right thing when the more flag
>>> is set.  We're supposed to keep processing packets until we get one with
>>> the done flag, and then all of that is supposed to be merged into a
>>> single
>>> packet.  Other flags such as the rx rate are only valid on the final
>>> packet.
>>>
>>> However, I did some debugging of this a while ago and concluded that the
>>> 'jumbo' frames were largely garbage data.  The dma buffer size is
>>> certainly
>>> large enough for a standard 802.11 frame and the 'more' flag is only
>>> supposed to be set if the dma buffer size is too small for a packet.  In
>>> all cases the dma buffer size was 2500+ bytes and the actual contents of
>>> the packets looked like random values (I did have encryption turned on,
>>> but there were no 802.11 headers I could see.)
>>>
>>> So I am not sure if the jumbo packets are causing bad things to happen,
>>> or if they are an indication that something bad has already happened.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm can someone test ath5k against an Atheros AP using fast frames ?
>> Maybe they are jumbo frames but they don't have any header etc so that
>> they look like one frame after un-fragmentation, documentation says
>> that the current frame is continued in the next descriptor if more is
>> set to 1 so i guess next buffer might not have the header. If more = 0
>> then it's our last descriptor and only then other fields such as done,
>> frame receive ok, rssi etc are valid.
>
> If an ath9k device in AP mode using hostapd counts as an Atheros AP, then I
>
> can test tonight.  If you can send me the steps to test this, I'll do it in
>
> about 8 hours.
>
> Pat Erley
>

As far as i know ath9k doesn't support fast frames ;-(

-- 
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/