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 15:16:16 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        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

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:28PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> 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?

Either way is fine, the stable maintainers apply them to all later
versions.

I notice now that adding a plus sign is more common, but it's still a
1:2 ratio judging from quick grep, while the stable-kernel-rules.rst
actually uses a minus sign...

Thanks,
Johan