[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <936d6f77-a36a-466c-9ca6-99da8feb5e2e@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:13:44 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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 11:43, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 11:46:24AM CET, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Please see dpll_pin_parent_device_set(). State here is treated exactly
> the same as there. It makes sense during set operation to process only
> the attributes that are passed. In the future, dpll_pin_parent_pin_set()
> can process more attributes, lets be prepared for that.
Ok, let's be ready.
Acked-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists