netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: add sanity check to device_property_read_u32

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:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 03:34:18 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     alexandre.torgue@...com, davem@...emloft.net, joabreu@...opsys.com,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        peppe.cavallaro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: add sanity check to device_property_read_u32_array
 call

Hi Colin,

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:55 AM Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> On 19/06/2019 06:13, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> >> Currently the call to device_property_read_u32_array is not error checked
> >> leading to potential garbage values in the delays array that are then used
> >> in msleep delays.  Add a sanity check to the property fetching.
> >>
> >> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized scalar variable")
> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > I have also sent a patch [0] to fix initialize the array.
> > can you please look at my patch so we can work out which one to use?
> >
> > my concern is that the "snps,reset-delays-us" property is optional,
> > the current dt-bindings documentation states that it's a required
> > property. in reality it isn't, there are boards (two examples are
> > mentioned in my patch: [0]) without it.
> >
> > so I believe that the resulting behavior has to be:
> > 1. don't delay if this property is missing (instead of delaying for
> >    <garbage value> ms)
> > 2. don't error out if this property is missing
> >
> > your patch covers #1, can you please check whether #2 is also covered?
> > I tested case #2 when submitting my patch and it worked fine (even
> > though I could not reproduce the garbage values which are being read
> > on some boards)
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/19/638
> >
> Is that the correct link?
sorry, that is a totally unrelated link
the correct link is: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1118313/