[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c7765f13b715e67637438c6dffaa5a369758519.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 07:57:07 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@...com>,
syzbot+62d7eef57b09bfebcd84@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
trix@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: sband's null check should precede params
On Wed, 2023-11-29 at 13:48 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
>
> [Analysis]
> When ieee80211_get_link_sband() fails to find a valid sband and first checks
> for params in sta_link_apply_parameters(), it will return 0 due to new_link
> being 0, which will lead to an incorrect process after sta_apply_parameters().
>
> [Fix]
> First obtain sband and perform a non null check before checking the params.
Not sure I can even disagree with that analysis, it seems right, but ...
> + if (!link || !link_sta)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + sband = ieee80211_get_link_sband(link);
> + if (!sband)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /*
> * If there are no changes, then accept a link that doesn't exist,
> * unless it's a new link.
There's a comment here which is clearly not true after this change,
since you've already returned for !link_sta?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists