linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: venus: hfi_parser: add check to avoid out of bound access

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: <37982a05-2057-45f4-923e-7562c683706d@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:43:56 +0000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
 Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: venus: hfi_parser: add check to avoid out of
 bound access

On 07/11/2024 13:54, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> I'd say, don't overwrite the array. Instead the driver should extend it
>>> with the new information.
>> That is exactly the existing patch is currently doing.
> _new_ information, not a copy of the existing information.

But is this _really_ new information or is it guarding from "malicious" 
additional messages ?

@Vikash is it even a valid use-case for firmware to send one set of 
capabilities and then send a new set ?

It seems to me this should only happen once when the firmware starts up 
- the firmware won't acquire any new abilities once it has enumerated 
its set to APSS.

So why is it valid to process an additional message at all ?

Shouldn't we instead be throwing away redundant updates either silently 
or with some kind of complaint ?

If there's no new data - then this is data we shouldn't bother processing.

If it is new data then surely it should be the _current_ and _only_ 
valid set of data.

And if the update is considered "invalid" then why _would_ we accept the 
update ?

I get we're fixing the OOB but I think we should be clear on the 
validity of the content of the packet.

---
bod