linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: fix array index out of bounds

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:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:46:19 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: fix array index out of bounds

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 09:40:59AM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 04:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
> > > We would overrun the error_text array if we hit a TIMEOUT condition,
> > > because we were using the error code "ETIMEDOUT" (which is 110) as an
> > > array index.
> > >
> > > We fix the problem by correcting the array index and by providing a
> > > function to retrieve error messages rather than accessing the array
> > > directly. The function includes a bounds check that prevents the array
> > > from being overrun.
> > >
> > > This patch was prepared in response to
> > >     https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/18/505.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
> >
> > Your Signed-off-by does not match From field. Please run
> > scripts/checkpatch on every patch you send.
> >
> > I fixed it up, assuming markus.mayer@...adcom.com is the valid email
> > address.
> 
> No. I have always been using mmayer@...adcom.com since it is shorter.
> That's also what's in the MAINTAINERS file. Please change it back. I
> accidentally used the long form for one of my e-mail replies which is
> where the confusion must have originated.

I'll drop the patch then. You need to resend with SoB matching email.

Best regards,
Krzysztof