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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <85f66a3a-95fa-5aaa-def0-998bf3f5139f@datenfreihafen.org> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:08:42 +0200 From: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org> To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com> Cc: Haimin Zhang <tcs.kernel@...il.com>, Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@...cent.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ieee802154: fix uninit value bug in dgram_sendmsg Hello Alex. On 23.08.22 14:22, Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:42 AM Stefan Schmidt > <stefan@...enfreihafen.org> wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> On 22.08.22 09:19, Haimin Zhang wrote: >>> There is uninit value bug in dgram_sendmsg function in >>> net/ieee802154/socket.c when the length of valid data pointed by the >>> msg->msg_name isn't verified. >>> >>> This length is specified by msg->msg_namelen. Function >>> ieee802154_addr_from_sa is called by dgram_sendmsg, which use >>> msg->msg_name as struct sockaddr_ieee802154* and read it, that will >>> eventually lead to uninit value read. So we should check the length of >>> msg->msg_name is not less than sizeof(struct sockaddr_ieee802154) >>> before entering the ieee802154_addr_from_sa. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@...cent.com> >> >> >> This patch has been applied to the wpan tree and will be >> part of the next pull request to net. Thanks! > > For me this patch is buggy or at least it is questionable how to deal > with the size of ieee802154_addr_sa here. You are right. I completely missed this. Thanks for spotting! > There should be a helper to calculate the size which depends on the > addr_type field. It is not required to send the last 6 bytes if > addr_type is IEEE802154_ADDR_SHORT. > Nitpick is that we should check in the beginning of that function. Haimin, in ieee802154 we could have two different sizes for ieee802154_addr_sa depending on the addr_type. We have short and extended addresses. Could you please rework this patch to take this into account as Alex suggested? I reverted your original patch from my tree. regards Stefan Schmidt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists