netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix uninitialised access in mii_nway

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z7R6uet1dJ1UJsJ1@qasdev.system>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:19:57 +0000
From: Qasim Ijaz <qasdev00@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix uninitialised access in mii_nway_restart()

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:10:08AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:24:43AM +0000, Qasim Ijaz wrote:
> > In mii_nway_restart() during the line:
> > 
> > 	bmcr = mii->mdio_read(mii->dev, mii->phy_id, MII_BMCR);
> > 
> > The code attempts to call mii->mdio_read which is ch9200_mdio_read().
> > 
> > ch9200_mdio_read() utilises a local buffer, which is initialised 
> > with control_read():
> > 
> > 	unsigned char buff[2];
> > 	
> > However buff is conditionally initialised inside control_read():
> > 
> > 	if (err == size) {
> > 		memcpy(data, buf, size);
> > 	}
> > 
> > If the condition of "err == size" is not met, then buff remains 
> > uninitialised. Once this happens the uninitialised buff is accessed 
> > and returned during ch9200_mdio_read():
> > 
> > 	return (buff[0] | buff[1] << 8);
> > 	
> > The problem stems from the fact that ch9200_mdio_read() ignores the
> > return value of control_read(), leading to uinit-access of buff.
> > 
> > To fix this we should check the return value of control_read()
> > and return early on error.
> 
> What about get_mac_address()?
> 
> If you find a bug, it is a good idea to look around and see if there
> are any more instances of the same bug. I could be wrong, but it seems
> like get_mac_address() suffers from the same problem?

Thank you for the feedback Andrew. I checked get_mac_address() before
sending this patch and to me it looks like it does check the return value of
control_read(). It accumulates the return value of each control_read() call into 
rd_mac_len and then checks if it not equal to what is expected (ETH_ALEN which is 6),
I believe each call should return 2.

> 
> 	Andrew