linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] e1000: fix OOB in e1000_tbi_should

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: <aS2F70YK_89QrsOL@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:11:27 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@...il.com>
Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"Loktionov, Aleksandr" <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] e1000: fix OOB in e1000_tbi_should_accept()

+ Aleksandr

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 11:40:58AM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> In e1000_tbi_should_accept() we read the last byte of the frame via
> 'data[length - 1]' to evaluate the TBI workaround. If the descriptor-
> reported length is zero or larger than the actual RX buffer size, this
> read goes out of bounds and can hit unrelated slab objects. The issue
> is observed from the NAPI receive path (e1000_clean_rx_irq):

...

> Fixes: 2037110c96d5 ("e1000: move tbi workaround code into helper function")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Suggested-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@...il.com>

> ---
> changelog:
> v2:
> - Keep declarations at the beginning of e1000_tbi_should_accept().
> - Move the last_byte assignment after the length bounds checks (suggested by Tony Nguyen)

I'm not sure that Tony's suggestions warrant a Suggested-by tag.
And perhaps Aleksandr's Reviewed-by tag should have been carried
over from v1: IMHO, I don't think the changes between v1 and v2
materially effect the review. But overall this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>