linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wireless 1/9] wifi: cfg80211: avoid garbage value of 'io_type' in brcmf_cfg80211

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]

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:29:20 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,  Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>,
  <johannes.berg@...el.com>,  <kees@...nel.org>,  <a@...repo.ru>,
  <marcan@...can.st>,  <quic_alokad@...cinc.com>,  <zyytlz.wz@....com>,
  <petr.tesarik.ext@...wei.com>,  <duoming@....edu.cn>,
  <colin.i.king@...il.com>,  <frankyl@...adcom.com>,
  <meuleman@...adcom.com>,  <phaber@...adcom.com>,
  <linville@...driver.com>,  <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
  <brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev>,  <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless 1/9]  wifi: cfg80211: avoid garbage value of
 'io_type' in  brcmf_cfg80211_attach()

Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:

> On July 2, 2024 3:57:27 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 08:24:44PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
>>> brcmf_fil_cmd_int_get() reads the value of 'io_type' and passes it to
>>> brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get(). Initialize 'io_type' to avoid garbage value.
>>
>> Since you're going to be resending anyway, please delete the space char
>> from the start of the line.
>>
>> It's weird that brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get() uses the uninitialized data.
>> It looks like it just goes to great lengths to preserve the original
>> data in io_type...  So it likely is harmless enough but still a strange
>> and complicated way write a no-op.
>
> Not sure if it helps, but I tried to explain the reason in response to
> patch 0 (cover letter).

Would it make more sense to have just one patch? It's the same issue
anyway.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches