linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] tee: qcom: prevent potential off by one read

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: <adbccfc0-0f9c-4b71-9fb5-5582c8180ac7@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:48:29 +1000
From: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] tee: qcom: prevent potential off by one read

On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using
> it.  This prevents a potential off by one read access.
> 
> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params,
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */
> -	for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) {
> +	for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) {
>  		if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO ||
>  		    u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO)
>  			qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o);

This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this
would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the
switch above.

Regards,
Amir