netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: mvneta: Fix an out of bounds check

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: <Y5BWZDS09uv7TTKA@unreal>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:01:24 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: mvneta: Fix an out of bounds check

On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:06:31AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> In an earlier commit, I added a bounds check to prevent an out of bounds
> read and a WARN().  On further discussion and consideration that check
> was probably too aggressive.  Instead of returning -EINVAL, a better fix
> would be to just prevent the out of bounds read but continue the process.
> 
> Background: The value of "pp->rxq_def" is a number between 0-7 by default,
> or even higher depending on the value of "rxq_number", which is a module
> parameter. If the value is more than the number of available CPUs then
> it will trigger the WARN() in cpu_max_bits_warn().
> 
> Fixes: e8b4fc13900b ("net: mvneta: Prevent out of bounds read in mvneta_config_rss()")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
> ---
> v2: fix the subject to say net instead of net-next.
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 

Thanks for the followup,
Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>