linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] wireless: ath9k

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, 3 Apr 2017 13:02:28 +0000
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
        Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
        Ulrich Kunitz <kune@...ne-taler.de>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sujith Manoharan <Sujith.Manoharan@...eros.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] wireless: ath9k_htc: fix NULL-deref at probe

Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> writes:

> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:44:20PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> Make sure to check the number of endpoints to avoid dereferencing a
>>> NULL-pointer or accessing memory beyond the endpoint array should a
>>> malicious device lack the expected endpoints.
>>> 
>>> Fixes: 36bcce430657 ("ath9k_htc: Handle storage devices")
>>> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <Sujith.Manoharan@...eros.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
>>
>> Is this one still in your queue, Kalle?
>
> Yes, I'm just lacking behing:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9620723/

Meant "lagging" of course. Mondays..

>> As I mentioned earlier, I should have added a
>>
>> Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>     # 2.6.39
>>
>> but left it out as I mistakingly thought the net recommendations to do
>> so applied also to wireless.
>
> Ok, I'll add that.

But is 2.6.39 really correct? Shouldn't it be 2.6.39+ so that it means
all versions since 2.6.39?

-- 
Kalle Valo