linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btusb: fix overflow return values

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:	Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:50:54 -0700
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Adam Lee <adam.lee@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
	Wen-chien Jesse Sung <jesse.sung@...onical.com>,
	AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
	Tedd Ho-Jeong An <tedd.an@...el.com>,
	Anthony Wong' <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btusb: fix overflow return values

Hi Adam,

> PTR_ERR() returns a long type value, but btusb_setup_intel() and
> btusb_setup_intel_patching() should return an int type value.
> 
> This bug makes the judgement "if (ret < 0)" not working on x86_64
> architecture systems, leading to failure as below, even panic.
> 
> [   12.958920] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   14.961765] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   16.964688] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   20.954501] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   22.957358] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   30.948922] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   32.951780] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   40.943359] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   42.946219] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   50.937812] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   52.940670] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   60.932236] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   62.935092] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   70.926688] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   72.929545] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc8e tx timeout
> [   80.921111] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc8e) failed (-110)
> [   82.923969] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc2f tx timeout
> [   90.915542] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc2f) failed (-110)
> [   92.918406] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc11 tx timeout
> [  100.909955] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc11) failed (-110)
> [  102.912858] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc60 tx timeout
> [  110.904394] Bluetooth: hci0 sending Intel patch command (0xfc60) failed (-110)
> [  112.907293] Bluetooth: hci0 command 0xfc11 tx timeout
> [  120.898831] Bluetooth: hci0 exiting Intel manufacturer mode failed (-110)
> [  120.904757] bluetoothd[1030]: segfault at 4 ip 00007f8b2eb55236 sp 00007fff53ff6920 error 4 in bluetoothd[7f8b2eaff000+cb000]
> 
> For not affecting other modules, I choose to modify the return values
> but not extend btusb_setup_intel() and btusb_setup_intel_patching()'s
> return types. This is harmless, because the return values were only
> used to comparing number 0.

there are tons of examples in various subsystems and drivers where we return PTR_ERR from a function calls returning int.

So I wonder what is actually going wrong here. If this is x86_64 specific problem with PTR_ERR vs int, then we should have this problem everywhere in the kernel.

Regards

Marcel

--
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/