linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: mon: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in mon_bin_event due to unsafe URB transfer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f4d33bc8-f988-4237-ad99-ceb2036bc197@arnaud-lcm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:22:36 +0100
From: "Lecomte, Arnaud" <contact@...aud-lcm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, snovitoll@...il.com,
 syzbot+86b6d7c8bcc66747c505@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: mon: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in mon_bin_event due to
 unsafe URB transfer_buffer access

It clarifies things and makes more sense now.
Appreciate the explanation :), thanks for your time

Arnaud

On 21/07/2025 14:51, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 09:22:40AM +0100, Lecomte, Arnaud wrote:
>> Hi Alan, thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Your point raises an important question for me: Is there a specific reason
>> why we don’t have
>>   a synchronization mechanism in place to protect the URB's transfer buffer ?
> Protect it from what?  Access by some driver at an inappropriate time?
> Drivers are supposed to know (and this is alluded to in the kerneldoc
> for usb_submit_urb()) that they aren't allowed to touch the transfer
> buffer while an URB is queued.
>
> Alan Stern