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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:02 -0700 From: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org> To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com> Cc: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: potential overflow in de4x5.c On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:40:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > #define MOTO_SROM_BUG (lp->active == 8 && (get_unaligned_le32(dev->dev_addr) & 0x00ffffff) == 0x3e0008) ... > Basically the MOTO_SROM_BUG macro is asking: Do we have an array overflow > and a hardware bug? If so we had better do something about the hardware > bug. It sounds silly to me. Hardware bug? A firmware bug I think. I read the MOTO_SROM_BUG to be using both "active" and "dev_addr" to be certain it was dealing with a broken SROM. And then fixing up the "bork3d" values reported by the SROM (setting active to 0). This still leaves open the question about when lp->active could be >= DE4X5_MAX_MII. > > BTW, someone suggested to fix up this same bit of code before: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg09838.html > > > > And I'm not sure why that patch wasn't accepted then either. Patch looks fine to me. > > > > Someone has updated the code since he posted the patch, presumably to fix > the second overflow he mentioned. *nod* > > There is still another one left unfixed though which smatch misses. > > 5073 if ((j == limit) && (i < DE4X5_MAX_MII)) { > 5074 for (k=0; k < DE4X5_MAX_PHY && lp->phy[k].id; k++); > 5075 lp->phy[k].addr = i; > > k could be == DE4X5_MAX_PHY on line 5075. Yup. In theory at least. But can anyone point me at a DE4X5 device that could have 7 or more phys attached to it? I expect no more than three cases (thin_lan Coax, RJ45, MAU) but am probably missing a few others - unlikely more than one or two more. One unlikely but possible case: broken HW which reads ~0U (PCI Master Abort) for phy[] values. cheers, grant -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists