netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/nfc/nci: use memset avoid infoleaks

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]

Message-ID: <926ccc54-6388-37be-0064-df3fd3972da2@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:33:46 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/nfc/nci: use memset avoid infoleaks

On 01/03/2022 09:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/03/2022 09:17, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
>> From: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@....com.cn>
>>
>> Use memset to initialize structs to preventing infoleaks
>> in nci_set_config
>>
>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>

One more thing. This report seems to be hidden, not public. Reported-by
tag means someone reported something and you want to give credits for
that. Using internal tool in a hidden, secret, non-public way does not
fit open-source collaboration method.

What is more: the email is invalid. "User unknown id"

>> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@....com.cn>
>> ---
>>  net/nfc/nci/core.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> index d2537383a3e8..32be42be1152 100644
>> --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ int nci_set_config(struct nci_dev *ndev, __u8 id, size_t len, const __u8 *val)
>>  	if (!val || !len)
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>> +	memset(&param, 0x0, sizeof(param));
>>  	param.id = id;
>>  	param.len = len;
>>  	param.val = val;
> 
> The entire 'param' is overwritten in later code, so what could leak here?
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


Best regards,
Krzysztof