linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi:dvm:Return false if resume command data is not same size as received packet for the function iwl_resume_status

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:10:09 +0000
From:	"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
To:	"xerofoify@...il.com" <xerofoify@...il.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Spinadel, David" <david.spinadel@...el.com>,
	"ilw@...ux.intel.com" <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
	"eliad@...ery.com" <eliad@...ery.com>,
	"Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	"kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi:dvm:Return false if resume command data is not
 same size as received packet for the function iwl_resume_status_fn

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 12:58 -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> 
> On June 10, 2015 12:50:45 PM EDT, "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 12:33 -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >> This makes the function iwl_resume_status_fn return false now if
> >> the received packet of type iwl_rx_packet is not the same size
> >> as the structure pointer, iwl_resume_data's cmd element in order
> >> to signal callers about this error and allow them to handle it
> >> occurrently.
> >> 
> >
> >Hm... Did you actually hit this if?
> >I am not sure I really want to wait here (which is what will happen if
> >you return false) when we get an unexpected length? I do not expect
> >anything besides the response I am waiting for since the firmware is
> >handling the GET_STATUS *only* - it just came back from WoWLAN. Bottom
> >line, this is really an error path and I prefer to exit and not wait
> >for
> >the timeout in that case.
> >But I might be missing something?
> >
> Why not wait for the time out?  Seems there is no reason not to and in that case
> if the firmware handles this

I doubt it will. This goes back to my original question: did you really
hit this path? Does the patch solves a real bug you faced?

> why is the if statement still here. 

To get a debug print? :)

> Nick 
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c
> >b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c
> >> index 5abd62e..21e808c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c
> >> @@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ static bool iwl_resume_status_fn(struct
> >iwl_notif_wait_data *notif_wait,
> >>  
> >>  	if (iwl_rx_packet_payload_len(pkt) != sizeof(*resume_data->cmd)) {
> >>  		IWL_ERR(priv, "rx wrong size data\n");
> >> -		return true;
> >> +		return false;
> >>  	}
> >>  	memcpy(resume_data->cmd, pkt->data, sizeof(*resume_data->cmd));
> >>  	resume_data->valid = true;
>