linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] HID: core: Reject report fields with a size or count of 0

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: <750377a5-b5df-4b2b-8e38-0001bfbeb30f@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:34:04 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+b63d677d63bcac06cf90@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	jikos@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: core: Reject report fields with a size or count of 0

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:32:14AM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Jul 21 2025, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 03:05:58PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > > So then would it be better to accept these report fields (perhaps with a 
> > > > warning) and instead, harden the core HID code so that it doesn't choke 
> > > > when it runs across one of them?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, that seems like the best plan forward.
> > > 
> > > [sorry on reduced setup for the next 3 weeks, so I can't really debug
> > > the entire thing now.]
> > > 
> > > Though, we should probably not annoy users unless we are trying to do
> > > something that won't be needed. I doubt that Saitek gamepad will ever
> > > call the faulty functions, so why putting an error in the logs when it's
> > > working fine?
> > 
> > All right.
> > 
> > Probably the best way to do this is simply to revert the commit that's 
> > already applied and then merge a new patch to harden the core.  Would 
> > you like me to post the reversion patch or do you prefer to do it 
> > yourself?
> 
> Given that the faulty commit is on top of for-6.17/core, I can simply
> force push to the parent, and also force push the for-next branch. That
> should do the trick.
> 
> Can you post your s32ton fix on top of that then?

Sure.  Patch coming up shortly...

Alan Stern