linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: Check for NULL firmwares in sysfs interface

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:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:43:30 +0200
From:   Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC:     Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: Check for NULL firmwares in sysfs
 interface

Hi Suman,

On 09/15/2018 02:37 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
> The remoteproc framework provides a sysfs file 'firmware'
> for modifying the firmware image name from userspace. Add
> an additional check to ensure NULL firmwares are errored
> out right away, rather than getting a delayed error while
> requesting a firmware during the start of a remoteproc
> later on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> index 2142b3ea726e..ce93f4d710f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ static ssize_t firmware_store(struct device *dev,
>  	}
>  
>  	len = strcspn(buf, "\n");
> +	if (!len) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "can't provide a NULL firmware\n");
> +		err = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
This patch fixes only the case of a null name but not a bad name. So I'm
not one hundred percent sure that it is relevant, as it treats only a
part of the problem. But it's fine with me if it is accepted.

Tested-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>

Regards
Arnaud

>  
>  	p = kstrndup(buf, len, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!p) {
>