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: <Y4gFt9GBRyv3kl2Y@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 02:39:03 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Piergiorgio Beruto <piergiorgio.beruto@...il.com>
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, peppe.cavallaro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] stmmac: fix potential division by 0

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:37:08AM +0100, Piergiorgio Beruto wrote:
> Depending on the HW platform and configuration, the
> stmmac_config_sub_second_increment() function may return 0 in the
> sec_inc variable. Therefore, the subsequent div_u64 operation can Oops
> the kernel because of the divisor being 0.

I'm wondering why it would return 0? Is the configuration actually
invalid? Is ptp_clock is too small, such that the value of data is
bigger than 255, but when masked with 0xff it gives zero?

I'm wondering if the correct thing to do is return -EINVAL in
stmmac_init_tstamp_counter().

So i would like an explanation of why it is zero.

Thanks
	Andrew

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ