[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210827090706.GA12231@kadam>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:07:06 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc: Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, straube.linux@...il.com,
fmdefrancesco@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read8
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> @@ -83,7 +83,12 @@ int proc_get_read_reg(char *page, char **start,
>
> switch (proc_get_read_len) {
> case 1:
> - len += snprintf(page + len, count - len, "rtw_read8(0x%x)=0x%x\n", proc_get_read_addr, rtw_read8(padapter, proc_get_read_addr));
> + error = rtw_read8(padapter, proc_get_read_addr, (u8 *) &tmp);
> + if (error)
> + return len;
> +
> + len += snprintf(page + len, count - len, "rtw_read8(0x%x)=0x%x\n",
> + proc_get_read_addr, (u8) tmp);
> break;
Oh my goodness... :P
If you look at what proc_get_read_addr is, it turns out it's a 32bit
address which is controlled by the user in proc_set_read_reg(). LOL!
Just a giant security hole.
My advise is just delete this dead code. No one is using it so how
necessary can it be?
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists