netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mwifiex: Fix possible buffer overflows in mwifiex_config

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87v9d0s8h6.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:28:05 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Xiaohui Zhang <ruc_zhangxiaohui@....com>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@....com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "\<netdev\@vger.kernel.org\>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mwifiex: Fix possible buffer overflows in mwifiex_config_scan

Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:14 AM Xiaohui Zhang <ruc_zhangxiaohui@....com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Zhang Xiaohui <ruc_zhangxiaohui@....com>
>>
>> mwifiex_config_scan() calls memcpy() without checking
>> the destination size may trigger a buffer overflower,
>> which a local user could use to cause denial of service
>> or the execution of arbitrary code.
>> Fix it by putting the length check before calling memcpy().
>
> ^^ That's not really what you're doing any more, for the record. But
> then, describing "what" is not really the point of a commit message
> (that's what the code is for), so maybe that's not that important.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Xiaohui <ruc_zhangxiaohui@....com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c
>> index c2a685f63..34293fd80 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c
>> @@ -931,7 +931,7 @@ mwifiex_config_scan(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
>>                                 wildcard_ssid_tlv->max_ssid_length = 0xfe;
>>
>>                         memcpy(wildcard_ssid_tlv->ssid,
>> -                              user_scan_in->ssid_list[i].ssid, ssid_len);
>> +                              user_scan_in->ssid_list[i].ssid, min_t(u32, ssid_len, 1));
>
> This *looks* like it should be wrong, because SSIDs are clearly longer
> than 1 byte in many cases, but you *are* right that this is what the
> struct is defined as:
>
> struct mwifiex_ie_types_wildcard_ssid_params {
> ...
>     u8 ssid[1];
> };
>
> This feels like something that could use some confirmation from
> NXP/ex-Marvell folks if possible, but if not that, at least some
> creative testing. Did you actually test this patch, to make sure
> non-wildcard scans still work?
>
> Also, even if this is correct, it seems like it would be more correct
> to use 'sizeof(wildcard_ssid_tlv->ssid)' instead of a magic number 1.

Xiaohui, please respond to Brian's comments. If you ignore review
comments I have a hard time trusting your patches.

Also when you submit a new version you should mark it as v2. See more in
the wiki link below.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches