netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: ncsi: Fix GCPS 64-bit member variables

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: <Z/RQSfwH1CLcDEuT@home.paul.comp>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 01:23:05 +0300
From: Paul Fertser <fercerpav@...il.com>
To: kalavakunta.hari.prasad@...il.com
Cc: sam@...dozajonas.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        npeacock@...a.com, akozlov@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: ncsi: Fix GCPS 64-bit member variables

Hello Hari,

Thank you for the patch.

On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:19:49AM -0700, kalavakunta.hari.prasad@...il.com wrote:
> @@ -290,7 +298,8 @@ struct ncsi_rsp_gcps_pkt {
>  	__be32                  tx_1023_frames;    /* Tx 512-1023 bytes frames   */
>  	__be32                  tx_1522_frames;    /* Tx 1024-1522 bytes frames  */
>  	__be32                  tx_9022_frames;    /* Tx 1523-9022 bytes frames  */
> -	__be32                  rx_valid_bytes;    /* Rx valid bytes             */
> +	__be32                  rx_valid_bytes_hi; /* Rx valid bytes             */
> +	__be32                  rx_valid_bytes_lo; /* Rx valid bytes             */

Why not __be64 then?

>  	__be32                  rx_runt_pkts;      /* Rx error runt packets      */
>  	__be32                  rx_jabber_pkts;    /* Rx error jabber packets    */
>  	__be32                  checksum;          /* Checksum                   */

I wonder how come this problem you're fixing wasn't spotted earlier,
as your patch is changing the checksum offset within the struct it
means the checksum isn't properly checked at all and neither is the
kernel checking that the size of the returned packet matches the size
of the struct?