linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.2.y-ckt 179/218] ath9k: fix buffer overrun for ar9287

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: <1459455431-12687-180-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:16:32 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.2.y-ckt 179/218] ath9k: fix buffer overrun for ar9287

4.2.8-ckt7 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

---8<------------------------------------------------------------

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

commit 83d6f1f15f8cce844b0a131cbc63e444620e48b5 upstream.

Code that was added back in 2.6.38 has an obvious overflow
when accessing a static array, and at the time it was added
only a code comment was put in front of it as a reminder
to have it reviewed properly.

This has not happened, but gcc-6 now points to the specific
overflow:

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c: In function 'ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs':
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c:483:44: error: array subscript is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds]
     maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4];
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~

It turns out that the correct array length exists in the local
'intercepts' variable of this function, so we can just use that
instead of hardcoding '4', so this patch changes all three
instances to use that variable. The other two instances were
already correct, but it's more consistent this way.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Fixes: 940cd2c12ebf ("ath9k_hw: merge the ar9287 version of ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs")
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
index cc81482..113a43f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
@@ -403,10 +403,9 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah,
 
 	if (match) {
 		if (AR_SREV_9287(ah)) {
-			/* FIXME: array overrun? */
 			for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) {
 				minPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0];
-				maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4];
+				maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1];
 				ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i],
 						data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i],
 						data_9287[idxL].vpdPdg[i],
@@ -416,7 +415,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah,
 		} else if (eeprom_4k) {
 			for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) {
 				minPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0];
-				maxPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4];
+				maxPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1];
 				ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i],
 						data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i],
 						data_4k[idxL].vpdPdg[i],
@@ -426,7 +425,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah,
 		} else {
 			for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) {
 				minPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0];
-				maxPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4];
+				maxPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1];
 				ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i],
 						data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i],
 						data_def[idxL].vpdPdg[i],
-- 
2.7.4