linux-kernel - Re: [Socketcan-users] [PATCH] CAN: make checking in can

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:	Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:08:59 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Luotao Fu <l.fu@...gutronix.de>
CC:	socketcan-users@...ts.berlios.de,
	Michael Olbrich <m.olbrich@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Socketcan-users] [PATCH] CAN: make checking in can_rcv	less
 restrictive

Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi Oliver (again ;-)),
> 
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 10:17:40PM +0200, Luotao Fu wrote:
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 06:48:23PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> ....
>>> When this BUG() triggers, someone provided a definitely broken *CAN* network
>>> driver, and this needsfp to be fixed on that level. 
>> In our case a sender (a FPGA) generates correct can frames carrying
>> wrong dlc length. This way the can driver on our side runs into the bug
>> though the driver itself is allright. The opposite needed to be fixed,
>> not our side.  Though we do suffer a system crash only because the
>> sender sends trash into the can network. This is imo quite bad.
>>
> 
> /me answering myself
> had a closer look again. Seemed you are right. The can driver should
> have get the can_dlc right prior to passing the message a level higher.

Hi Luotao,

just one additional point i discovered after sending my last reply:

When can_dlc is not in the CAN conform value range from 0..8, you can really
get into trouble when accessing the CAN frames payload by using the can_dlc as
an index (a usual use-case):

        for (i = 0; i < frame.can_dlc; i++) {
                my_userdata[i] = frame.data[i];
                printf("%02X ", frame.data[i]);
        }

In this case you might access values outside the data[8] array.

And this is definitely a bad idea when you're writing to my_userdata[].

Best regards,
Oliver

--
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/