netdev - Re: [ethtool PATCH] ethtool: Resolve use of uninitialized memory in rxclass_get_dev

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:	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:10:08 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [ethtool PATCH] ethtool: Resolve use of uninitialized memory
 in rxclass_get_dev_info

On 07/16/2012 01:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:55 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> The ethtool function for getting the rule count was not zeroing out the
>> data field before passing it to the kernel.  As a result the value started
>> uninitialized and was incorrectly returning a result indicating that
>> devices supported setting new rule indexes.  In order to correct this I am
>> adding a one line fix that sets data to zero before we pass the command to
>> the kernel.
> Right.  For 'get' commands with no parameters (besides the device) the
> data copied back to userland is normally zero-initialised and then
> filled out by the driver, and I seem to have worked on that assumption.
> But because of the odd multiplexing of RX NFC commands
> ETHTOOL_GRXCLSRLCNT doesn't work like that.  And for 'my' driver that
> didn't matter.  Sorry about that.
>
> (We should really have some explicit documentation of responsibility for
> structure initialisation.)
>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I am resending this since I didn't see any notification that it had been seen.
>> I also realized that I had not clearly identified that this is an ethtool user
>> space patch and not an ethtool kernel space patch.
> It was perfectly clear and I had queued it up to review but hadn't yet
> done so.
>
> Ben.
>
Yeah, that was my mistake.  I thought I hadn't sent it out with the
ethtool prefix when I actually had.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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