linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: usbfs: fix crash in check_ctrlrecip()->usb_find_alt

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: <13984886.16016319.1537887354102.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:55:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Vladis Dronov <vdronov@...hat.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: usbfs: fix crash in
 check_ctrlrecip()->usb_find_alt_setting()

> What reason is there for having two different fixes for the same bug?
> This one isn't going to get into any mainline trees that don't already
> have c9a4cb204e9e.

I believe this is the right thing to do, so usb_find_alt_setting()
is not called with a known-bad argument.

Honestly, I would change "if (!config)" in usb_find_alt_setting() to
"BUG_ON(!config)" so we know when its callers do smth wrong and go
fix callers. Unfortunately, I understand this hardly will be accepted.

Best regards,
Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | Product Security Engineer