linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ath9k: release allocated buffer if timed out

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:   Wed, 13 May 2020 12:12:14 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>
Cc:     Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        QCA ath9k Development <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: release allocated buffer if timed out

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:25 PM Navid Emamdoost
<navid.emamdoost@...il.com> wrote:
> I found this via static analysis and as a result, did had the inputs
> to test it with (like the way fuzzing works).

Fuzzing is dynamic analysis, so I'm not sure how that fits.

> It may be beneficial if you could point me to any testing
> infrastructure that you use or are aware of for future cases.

syzbot (a real fuzzer -- I believe it uses fake USB devices [1])
caught the error, apparently:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=ced21a4c726bdc60b1680c050a284b08803bc64c
so you might look at using that too.

Traditionally, "testing your patches" means having hardware that runs
the driver in question when patching said driver. That likely won't
scale for researchers, but then, perhaps it just means you need to be
more clear on how you caught the issue and how you did (or didn't)
test it, so it's easier to reconcile your claims with the testing done
by real users.

If you only did static analysis, then we can be more confident in
reverting. The fuzz-tested revert is an even nicer bonus.

Brian

[1] https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#usb-bugs
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/linux/external_fuzzing_usb.md