[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab59089feac4cfbc1d681fcaa4a828ca13088ce1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 21:29:57 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Kenton Groombridge <concord@...too.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook
<keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: mac80211: Avoid address calculations via out
of bounds array indexing
On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 14:53 -0400, Kenton Groombridge wrote:
> On 24/05/29 04:54PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 10:54 -0400, Kenton Groombridge wrote:
> > > req->n_channels must be set before req->channels[] can be used.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know why, but this patch breaks a number of hwsim test cases.
> >
> > https://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/tree/tests/hwsim/
> >
> > johannes
>
> Pardon my absence.
>
> I'm also not sure why these tests are failing. Unless I'm missing
> something, the runtime behavior of these code paths shouldn't have
> changed significantly.
>
Looking at your patch again, this seems wrong?
> + local->hw_scan_req->req.channels[*n_chans++] =
> req->channels[i];
>
This will increment n_chans rather than *n_chans, no?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists