linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT] net: asix: add proper error handling of usb read errors

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: <f676e339-5808-2163-2afd-ea254cfb2684@rempel-privat.de>
Date:   Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:48:56 +0100
From:   Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, andrew@...n.ch, oneukum@...e.com,
        robert.foss@...labora.com, freddy@...x.com.tw
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+6ca9f7867b77c2d316ac@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT] net: asix: add proper error handling of usb read
 errors

Am 06.02.22 um 18:23 schrieb Pavel Skripkin:
> On 1/5/22 16:19, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> Syzbot once again hit uninit value in asix driver. The problem still the
>> same -- asix_read_cmd() reads less bytes, than was requested by caller.
>>
>> Since all read requests are performed via asix_read_cmd() let's catch
>> usb related error there and add __must_check notation to be sure all
>> callers actually check return value.
>>
>> So, this patch adds sanity check inside asix_read_cmd(), that simply
>> checks if bytes read are not less, than was requested and adds missing
>> error handling of asix_read_cmd() all across the driver code.
>>
>> Fixes: d9fe64e51114 ("net: asix: Add in_pm parameter")
>> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+6ca9f7867b77c2d316ac@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
>> ---
>
> gentle ping :)

Please resend patch against latest net-next with "net-next" tag instead of "RFT".

--
Regards,
Oleksij