linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] wifi: ath11k: mark reset srng lists as uninitialized

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: <kuawjsglndjvwmq2ki2kctvgcdci6mhfp7juux7tzo3g6h5txh@hddxo4o5raea>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:31:00 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@...cinc.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ath11k@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] wifi: ath11k: mark reset srng lists as uninitialized

On (25/06/12 16:14), Baochen Qiang wrote:
> > <4>[23562.576034] ath11k_qmi_driver_event_work+0xbd/0x1050 [ath11k (HASH:6cea 4)]
> > <4>[23562.576058] worker_thread+0x389/0x930
> > <4>[23562.576065] kthread+0x149/0x170
> > <4>[23562.576074] ? start_flush_work+0x130/0x130
> > <4>[23562.576078] ? kthread_associate_blkcg+0xb0/0xb0
> > <4>[23562.576084] ret_from_fork+0x3b/0x50
> > <4>[23562.576090] ? kthread_associate_blkcg+0xb0/0xb0
> > <4>[23562.576096] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
> > 
> > 
> > There are clearly two ath11k_hal_dump_srng_stats() calls, the first
> > one happens before crash recovery, the second happens right after
> > and presumably causes UAF, because ->initialized flag is not cleared.
> 
> So with above we can confirm our guess.
> 
> Could you refine your commit message with these details such that readers have a clear
> understanding of this issue?

Sure, I can do that.   I didn't want to throw my guesses into the commit
message, stale ->initialized flag looked like a good enough justification
for the patch.  But I can send out v3 with a more detailed commit message.