linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: Increase the size of wid

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d3e07dfd0efe21192d172b2e4e7d4a489a4fcc62.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sun, 03 May 2020 16:29:53 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com, oscar.carter@....com,
        adham.abozaeid@...rochip.com
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rachel.kim@...el.com,
        johnny.kim@...el.com, chris.park@...el.com, dean.lee@...el.com,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: Increase the size of wid_list
 array

On Sun, 2020-05-03 at 14:52 +0000, Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 03/05/20 1:21 pm, Oscar Carter wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > Increase by one the size of wid_list array as index variable can reach a
> > value of 5. If this happens, an out-of-bounds access is performed.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1451981 ("Out-of-bounds access")
> > Fixes: f5a3cb90b802d ("staging: wilc1000: add passive scan support")
> > Signed-off-by: Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/hif.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/hif.c
[]
> > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ int wilc_scan(struct wilc_vif *vif, u8 scan_source, u8 scan_type,
> >               void *user_arg, struct cfg80211_scan_request *request)
> >  {
> >         int result = 0;
> > -       struct wid wid_list[5];
> > +       struct wid wid_list[6];

This looks like it should be using a #define instead of
a hard-coded number.

> >         u32 index = 0;
> >         u32 i, scan_timeout;
> >         u8 *buffer;
> > --
> > 2.20.1