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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 16:43:13 +0200
From:   Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com,
        adham.abozaeid@...rochip.com
Cc:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>, 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, May 03, 2020 at 04:29:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

I agree. I will make the changes you suggested and I will resend a new version.

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