[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1370d58-9689-4c82-bca0-1ef6d709bc18@vivo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 10:06:56 +0800
From: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@...o.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@...cinc.com>,
Roopni Devanathan <quic_rdevanat@...cinc.com>,
Rameshkumar Sundaram <quic_ramess@...cinc.com>,
Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jeff Chen <jeff.chen_1@....con>,
Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@....de>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, Cathy Luo <cluo@...vell.com>,
Xinmin Hu <huxm@...vell.com>, Avinash Patil <patila@...vell.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: mwifiex: use kcalloc to apply for chan_stats
在 2025/8/14 22:50, Dan Carpenter 写道:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 09:15:31PM +0800, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
>> Use kcalloc to allocate 'adapter->chan_stats' memory (max 900 bytes)
>> instead of vmalloc for efficiency and zero-initialize it for security
>> per Dan Carpenter's suggestion.
>>
> This patch is okay, but lets re-write the commit message:
>
> Subject: wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero
>
> The adapter->chan_stats[] array is initialized in
> mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn't zero out
> memory. The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics()
> and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey().
>
> There are two potential issues here. What if the user calls
> mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in.
> Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn't necessarily
> initialize the whole array. Since the array was not initialized at
> the start that could result in an information leak.
>
> Also this array is pretty small. It's a maximum of 900 bytes so it's
> more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().
Ok,Thank you for your correction, I will release the next version soon.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Best regards,
Qianfeng
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists