linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] i2c: npcm: restore slave addresses array length

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: <ZtrqRc5XYmYBtonw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:40:53 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc: Tyrone Ting <warp5tw@...il.com>, avifishman70@...il.com,
	tmaimon77@...il.com, tali.perry1@...il.com, venture@...gle.com,
	yuenn@...gle.com, benjaminfair@...gle.com, wsa@...nel.org,
	rand.sec96@...il.com, wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
	tali.perry@...oton.com, Avi.Fishman@...oton.com,
	tomer.maimon@...oton.com, KWLIU@...oton.com, JJLIU0@...oton.com,
	kfting@...oton.com, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] i2c: npcm: restore slave addresses array length

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:36:45PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 11:46:34AM GMT, Tyrone Ting wrote:
> > The smatch check warning is "buffer overflow 'npcm_i2caddr' 2 <= 9".
> > The original design supports 10 slave addresses although only 2
> > addresses are required for current implementation.
> > 
> > Restore the npcm_i2caddr array length to fix the smatch warning.
> > 
> > Fixes: 47d506d1a28f ("i2c: npcm: Remove own slave addresses 2:10")
> > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202408130818.FgDP5uNm-lkp@intel.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Tyrone Ting <kfting@...oton.com>
> 
> your email used in From: is different that your e-mail used the
> SoB. Is this done in purpose? If so I will keep it as it is, no
> problem for me, otherwise I can fix it while applying it.

IIRC Linux Next has the respective check and it will become your problem :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko