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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 01:03:58 +0900 From: Minsuk Kang <linuxlovemin@...sei.ac.kr> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: linma@....edu.cn, davem@...emloft.net, sameo@...ux.intel.com, linville@...driver.com, dokyungs@...sei.ac.kr, jisoo.jang@...sei.ac.kr, Minsuk Kang <linuxlovemin@...sei.ac.kr> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2] nfc: pn533: Clear nfc_target before being used On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 03:41:36PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/12/2022 15:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 13/12/2022 15:27, Minsuk Kang wrote: > >> Fix a slab-out-of-bounds read that occurs in nla_put() called from > >> nfc_genl_send_target() when target->sensb_res_len, which is duplicated > >> from an nfc_target in pn533, is too large as the nfc_target is not > >> properly initialized and retains garbage values. Clear nfc_targets with > >> memset() before they are used. > >> > >> Found by a modified version of syzkaller. > >> > >> BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in nla_put > >> Call Trace: > >> memcpy > >> nla_put > >> nfc_genl_dump_targets > >> genl_lock_dumpit > >> netlink_dump > >> __netlink_dump_start > >> genl_family_rcv_msg_dumpit > >> genl_rcv_msg > >> netlink_rcv_skb > >> genl_rcv > >> netlink_unicast > >> netlink_sendmsg > >> sock_sendmsg > >> ____sys_sendmsg > >> ___sys_sendmsg > >> __sys_sendmsg > >> do_syscall_64 > >> > >> Fixes: 673088fb42d0 ("NFC: pn533: Send ATR_REQ directly for active device detection") > >> Fixes: 361f3cb7f9cf ("NFC: DEP link hook implementation for pn533") > >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> > > > > How did it happen? From where did you get it? > > I double checked - I did not send it. This is some fake tag. Please do > not add fake/invented/created tags with people's names. Sorry for my confusion. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L505 I missed the definition of the tag as I did not read the document carefully and misunderstood that the tag simply means I have got a reply from maintainers and I should manually attach it if that is the case. I will rewrite the patch after I make sure I fully understand the whole rules. Best regards, Minsuk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists