linux-kernel - Re: iwlwifi: Checking a kmemdup() call in iwl_req_fw

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:24:58 +0200
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linuxwifi@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>,
        Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi: Checking a kmemdup() call in iwl_req_fw_callback()

On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:26 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I tried another script for the semantic patch language out.
> This source code analysis approach points out that the implementation
> of the function “iwl_req_fw_callback” contains still an unchecked call
> of the function “kmemdup”.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c?id=1c0cc5f1ae5ee5a6913704c0d75a6e99604ee30a#n1454
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4-rc2/source/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c#L1454
> 
> Can it be that just an other data structure member should be used
> for the desired null pointer check at this place?

Hi Markus,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this.

I've checked this now and you are right.  We are checking the element
in the array that contains the length of the allocation we requested
instead of checking the pointer returned by kmemdup().  This was
probably a typo.

I have fixed this in our internal tree and it will reach the mainline
following our normal upstreaming process.

Thanks for reporting!

--
Cheers,
Luca.