netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: pegasus: fix uninit-value in get_interrupt

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:   Sun, 1 Aug 2021 23:24:21 +0300
From:   Petko Manolov <petkan@...leusys.com>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+02c9f70f3afae308464a@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: pegasus: fix uninit-value in get_interrupt_interval

On 21-08-01 22:35:13, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:36:27 +0300 Petko Manolov <petkan@...leusys.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 21-07-31 00:44:11, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > > Syzbot reported uninit value pegasus_probe(). The problem was in missing
> > > error handling.
> > > 
> > > get_interrupt_interval() internally calls read_eprom_word() which can fail
> > > in some cases. For example: failed to receive usb control message. These
> > > cases should be handled to prevent uninit value bug, since
> > > read_eprom_word() will not initialize passed stack variable in case of
> > > internal failure.
> > 
> > Well, this is most definitelly a bug.
> > 
> > ACK!
> > 
> > 
> >		Petko
> 
> BTW: I found a lot uses of {get,set}_registers without error checking. I
> think, some of them could be fixed easily (like in enable_eprom_write), but, I
> guess, disable_eprom_write is not so easy. For example, if we cannot disable
> eprom should we retry? If not, will device get in some unexpected state?

Everything bracketed by PEGASUS_WRITE_EEPROM is more or less dead code.  I've
added this feature because the chip give us the ability to write to the flash,
but i seriously doubt anybody ever used it.  Come to think about it, i should
just remove this code.

> Im not familiar with this device, but I can prepare a patch to wrap all these
> calls with proper error checking

Well, i've stared at the code a bit and i see some places where not checking the
error returned by {get,set}_registers() could really be problematic.  I'll cook
a patch with what i think needs doing and will submit it here for review.


cheers,
Petko