linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.3 124/200] ALSA: hda - Fix static checker warning in patch

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:	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:22:11 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	David Henningsson <david.henningsson@...onical.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 4.3 124/200] ALSA: hda - Fix static checker warning in patch_hdmi.c

4.3-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: David Henningsson <david.henningsson@...onical.com>

commit 360a8245680053619205a3ae10e6bfe624a5da1d upstream.

The static checker warning is:

	sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c:460 hdmi_eld_ctl_get()
	error: __memcpy() 'eld->eld_buffer' too small (256 vs 512)

I have a hard time figuring out if this can ever cause an information leak
(I don't think so), but nonetheless it does not hurt to increase the
robustness of the code.

Fixes: 68e03de98507 ('ALSA: hda - hdmi: Do not expose eld data when eld is invalid')
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Henningsson <david.henningsson@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
+++ b/sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
@@ -438,7 +438,8 @@ static int hdmi_eld_ctl_get(struct snd_k
 	eld = &per_pin->sink_eld;
 
 	mutex_lock(&per_pin->lock);
-	if (eld->eld_size > ARRAY_SIZE(ucontrol->value.bytes.data)) {
+	if (eld->eld_size > ARRAY_SIZE(ucontrol->value.bytes.data) ||
+	    eld->eld_size > ELD_MAX_SIZE) {
 		mutex_unlock(&per_pin->lock);
 		snd_BUG();
 		return -EINVAL;