linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] net/nfc/nci: fix infoleak in struct nci_set_config

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]

Message-ID: <8ac6925c-e855-fe43-21cf-6701172c003b@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:02:01 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE)" <chi.minghao@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] net/nfc/nci: fix infoleak in struct
 nci_set_config_param

On 02/03/2022 04:33, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> From: "Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE)" <chi.minghao@....com.cn>
> 
> On 64-bit systems, struct nci_set_config_param has
> an added padding of 7 bytes between struct members
> id and len. Even though all struct members are initialized,
> the 7-byte hole will contain data from the kernel stack.
> This patch zeroes out struct nci_set_config_param before
> usage, preventing infoleaks to userspace.
> 
> v1->v2:
>   -Modify the title.
>   -Add explanatory information.

Changelog goes below ---.

> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>

Why do you ignore the comment about missing report?

> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@....com.cn>
> ---
>  net/nfc/nci/core.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> index d2537383a3e8..32be42be1152 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
> @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ int nci_set_config(struct nci_dev *ndev, __u8 id, size_t len, const __u8 *val)
>  	if (!val || !len)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	memset(&param, 0x0, sizeof(param));

You ignored the comment here as well. That's not how a v2 should be
sent...  if you don't agree with comments, we need to keep discussing.

>  	param.id = id;
>  	param.len = len;
>  	param.val = val;


Best regards,
Krzysztof