netdev - Re: [syzbot] [wireless] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in ieee80211_wep

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: <2d1a41aa000c8de8f82827bd8c06459e01f10423.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 17:57:27 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+d1008c24929007591b6b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	ardb@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, 
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 mingo@...hat.com, 	netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
 tglx@...utronix.de, 	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [wireless] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request
 in ieee80211_wep_encrypt

On Fri, 2025-07-18 at 07:50 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > 
> > BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff8880bfffd000
[...]
> > Call Trace:
> >  <TASK>
> >  crc32_le_arch+0x56/0xa0 arch/x86/lib/crc32.c:21
> >  crc32_le include/linux/crc32.h:18 [inline]
> >  ieee80211_wep_encrypt_data net/mac80211/wep.c:114 [inline]
> >  ieee80211_wep_encrypt+0x228/0x410 net/mac80211/wep.c:158
[...]
> >  nl80211_tx_mgmt+0x9fd/0xd50 net/wireless/nl80211.c:12921
> 
> syzbot assigned this to the "crypto" subsystem.  However, the crash
> happened in crc32_le() which is not part of the crypto subsystem.  Also,
> crc32_le() is well-tested (e.g. by crc_kunit), and the bug is unlikely
> to be there.  Rather, the calling code in ieee80211_wep_encrypt_data()
> is passing an invalid data buffer to crc32_le().  So let's do:

Agree, that makes sense, looks like we never check the frame length
correctly. Since there's no reproducer (yet) I guess we won't be testing
against it with syzbot though :)

johannes