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: <34ks6futbrmunsq2tbz75jwqg64lpk4pg6udbbk3yo2exm657b@3fivbjjdcyl4>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:32:14 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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 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?

Cheers,
Benjamin