netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Fix out-of-bound access

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: <72e02a72-ab98-4a64-99ac-769d28cfd758@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:58:05 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Joseph Huang <Joseph.Huang@...min.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Fix out-of-bound access

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 06:26:40PM -0400, Joseph Huang wrote:
> If an ATU violation was caused by a CPU Load operation, the SPID is 0xf,
> which is larger than DSA_MAX_PORTS (the size of mv88e6xxx_chip.ports[]
> array).

The 6390X datasheet says "IF SPID = 0x1f the source of the violation
was the CPU's registers interface."

> +#define MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_SPID_CPU				0x000f

So it seems to depend on the family.

>  
>  /* Offset 0x0D: ATU MAC Address Register Bytes 0 & 1
>   * Offset 0x0E: ATU MAC Address Register Bytes 2 & 3
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c
> index ce3b3690c3c0..b6f15ae22c20 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c
> @@ -457,7 +457,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_prob_irq_thread_fn(int irq, void *dev_id)
>  		trace_mv88e6xxx_atu_full_violation(chip->dev, spid,
>  						   entry.portvec, entry.mac,
>  						   fid);
> -		chip->ports[spid].atu_full_violation++;
> +		if (spid != MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_SPID_CPU)
> +			chip->ports[spid].atu_full_violation++;

So i think it would be better to do something like:

		if (spid < ARRAY_SIZE(chip->ports))
			chip->ports[spid].atu_full_violation++;

    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr