netdev - [pull 2.6.30 2/2] wimax: oops: wimax_dev_add() is the only one that can initialize the state

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]

Date:	Wed,  6 May 2009 14:47:23 -0700
From:	Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>
To:	wimax@...uxwimax.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [pull 2.6.30 2/2] wimax: oops: wimax_dev_add() is the only one that can initialize the state

When a new wimax_dev is created, it's state has to be __WIMAX_ST_NULL
until wimax_dev_add() is succesfully called. This allows calls into
the stack that happen before said time to be rejected.

Until now, the state was being set (by mistake) to UNINITIALIZED,
which was allowing calls such as wimax_report_rfkill_hw() to go
through even when a call to wimax_dev_add() had failed; that was
causing an oops when touching uninitialized data.

This situation is normal when the device starts reporting state before
the whole initialization has been completed. It just has to be dealt
with.

Signed-off-by: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>
---
 net/wimax/stack.c |   17 +++++++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/wimax/stack.c b/net/wimax/stack.c
index a0ee76b..933e142 100644
--- a/net/wimax/stack.c
+++ b/net/wimax/stack.c
@@ -338,8 +338,21 @@ out:
  */
 void wimax_state_change(struct wimax_dev *wimax_dev, enum wimax_st new_state)
 {
+	/*
+	 * A driver cannot take the wimax_dev out of the
+	 * __WIMAX_ST_NULL state unless by calling wimax_dev_add(). If
+	 * the wimax_dev's state is still NULL, we ignore any request
+	 * to change its state because it means it hasn't been yet
+	 * registered.
+	 *
+	 * There is no need to complain about it, as routines that
+	 * call this might be shared from different code paths that
+	 * are called before or after wimax_dev_add() has done its
+	 * job.
+	 */
 	mutex_lock(&wimax_dev->mutex);
-	__wimax_state_change(wimax_dev, new_state);
+	if (wimax_dev->state > __WIMAX_ST_NULL)
+		__wimax_state_change(wimax_dev, new_state);
 	mutex_unlock(&wimax_dev->mutex);
 	return;
 }
@@ -376,7 +389,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wimax_state_get);
 void wimax_dev_init(struct wimax_dev *wimax_dev)
 {
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wimax_dev->id_table_node);
-	__wimax_state_set(wimax_dev, WIMAX_ST_UNINITIALIZED);
+	__wimax_state_set(wimax_dev, __WIMAX_ST_NULL);
 	mutex_init(&wimax_dev->mutex);
 	mutex_init(&wimax_dev->mutex_reset);
 }
-- 
1.6.2.3

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html