linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: Avoid address calculations via out of bounds array indexing

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]

Message-ID: <10256004963b6e1a1813c6f07c5d21abfc843070.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 12:46:46 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>,  Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>,  linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>, "Gustavo
 A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: Avoid address calculations via out of
 bounds array indexing

On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 11:13 -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:01:01PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Before request->channels[] can be used, request->n_channels must be set.
> > Additionally, address calculations for memory after the "channels" array
> > need to be calculated from the allocation base ("request") rather than
> > via the first "out of bounds" index of "channels", otherwise run-time
> > bounds checking will throw a warning.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> > Fixes: e3eac9f32ec0 ("wifi: cfg80211: Annotate struct cfg80211_scan_request with __counted_by")
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> 

How do you get this tested? We have the same, and more, bugs in
cfg80211_scan_6ghz() which I'm fixing right now, but no idea how to
actually get the checks done?

johannes