netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/VPD: Add pci_read/write_vpd

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:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:08:58 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Raju Rangoju <rajur@...lsio.com>
Cc:     "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/VPD: Add pci_read/write_vpd_any()

On 13.10.2021 16:22, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/12/2021 4:26 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Thanks for the report! I could reproduce the issue, the following fixes
>> it for me. Could you please test whether it fixes the issue for you as well?
> 
> Yes, it works fine. BTW, in the original patch here:
> 
Thanks for testing!

> --- a/drivers/pci/vpd.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/vpd.c
> @@ -138,9 +138,10 @@ static int pci_vpd_wait(struct pci_dev *dev, bool set)
>  }
>  
>  static ssize_t pci_vpd_read(struct pci_dev *dev, loff_t pos, size_t count,
> -			    void *arg)
> +			    void *arg, bool check_size)
>  {
>  	struct pci_vpd *vpd = &dev->vpd;
> +	unsigned int max_len = check_size ? vpd->len : PCI_VPD_MAX_SIZE;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	loff_t end = pos + count;
>  	u8 *buf = arg;
> @@ -151,11 +152,11 @@ static ssize_t pci_vpd_read(struct pci_dev *dev, loff_t pos, size_t count,
>  	if (pos < 0)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (pos > vpd->len)
> +	if (pos >= max_len)
>  		return 0;
> 
> I am not sure if "pos >= max_len" is correct there, so just want to give you
> a chance to double-check.
> 
This is intentional, but good catch.