netdev - Re: [PATCH net-XXX] net: dsa: qca8k: uninitialized variable in hw_control

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f7200756-81a3-4a43-939c-01fa91af6a9f@kadam.mountain>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:42:02 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-XXX] net: dsa: qca8k: uninitialized variable in
 hw_control_get()

The net-XXX in the subject was supposed to be net-next btw.  I did check
that it only applied to net-next but I messed up the subject...  :/

On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 06:04:31PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:20:55AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The caller, netdev_trig_activate(), passes an uninitialized value for
> > *rules.  This function sets bits to one but it doesn't zero out any
> > bits so there is a potential for uninitialized data to be used.
> > Zero out the *rules at the start of the function.
> > 
> > Fixes: e0256648c831 ("net: dsa: qca8k: implement hw_control ops")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> 
> Thanks for the fix but I wonder if this should be better fixed in
> netdev_trig_activate? By setting the mode as 0 directly there?
> 
> I assume other dev implementing the get ops would do the same mistake.

Yes.  You're obviously right on this.  I'm not sure what I was thinking.

I will resend.

regards,
dan carpenter