netdev - Re: [patch net] dpll: sanitize possible null pointer dereference in dpll_pin_parent_pin

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

Message-ID: <ffd827e6-95ed-4d96-b5ad-ec1f5b8d4e24@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:46:24 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hdthky0@...il.com, michal.michalik@...el.com,
 milena.olech@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net] dpll: sanitize possible null pointer dereference in
 dpll_pin_parent_pin_set()

On 11/12/2023 08:37, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> 
> User may not pass DPLL_A_PIN_STATE attribute in the pin set operation
> message. Sanitize that by checking if the attr pointer is not null
> and process the passed state attribute value only in that case.
> 
> Reported-by: Xingyuan Mo <hdthky0@...il.com>
> Fixes: 9d71b54b65b1 ("dpll: netlink: Add DPLL framework base functions")
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> ---
>   drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c b/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
> index 442a0ebeb953..ce7cf736f020 100644
> --- a/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
> @@ -925,7 +925,6 @@ dpll_pin_parent_pin_set(struct dpll_pin *pin, struct nlattr *parent_nest,
>   			struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>   {
>   	struct nlattr *tb[DPLL_A_PIN_MAX + 1];
> -	enum dpll_pin_state state;
>   	u32 ppin_idx;
>   	int ret;
>   
> @@ -936,10 +935,14 @@ dpll_pin_parent_pin_set(struct dpll_pin *pin, struct nlattr *parent_nest,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>   	ppin_idx = nla_get_u32(tb[DPLL_A_PIN_PARENT_ID]);
> -	state = nla_get_u32(tb[DPLL_A_PIN_STATE]);
> -	ret = dpll_pin_on_pin_state_set(pin, ppin_idx, state, extack);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +
> +	if (tb[DPLL_A_PIN_STATE]) {
> +		enum dpll_pin_state state = nla_get_u32(tb[DPLL_A_PIN_STATE]);
> +
> +		ret = dpll_pin_on_pin_state_set(pin, ppin_idx, state, extack);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }

I don't believe that "set" command without set value should return 0
meaning "request was completed successfully". Maybe it's better to add 
another check like for DPLL_A_PIN_PARENT_ID and fill extack with
description?