netdev - Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: sband's null check should precede params

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: <52e6ba0affb1648edd3ffd25fb6d8199a39a2f51.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:15:03 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@...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, 
	syzbot+62d7eef57b09bfebcd84@...kaller.appspotmail.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 16:48 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:33:23 +0100, Johannes Berg 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?
> > > No, after applying my patch, it will return due to !sband.
> > > 
> > 
> > Right, OK, but the way I read the comment (now) is that it wanted to
> > accept it in that case?
> > 
> > That said, I just threw the patch into our internal testing machinery
> > quickly (probably has more MLO tests than upstream hostap for now), and
> > it worked just fine ...
> > 
> > Maybe we should just remove the comment?
> Do you mean to delete the comments below?
>    3         /*
>    2          * If there are no changes, then accept a link that doesn't exist,
>    1          * unless it's a new link.
> 1800          */
> 

Right, it doesn't seem correct any more?

johannes