| Message ID | 20220301081750.2053246-1-chi.minghao@zte.com.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net/nfc/nci: use memset avoid infoleaks | expand |
On 01/03/2022 09:17, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: > From: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn> > > Use memset to initialize structs to preventing infoleaks > in nci_set_config > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn> > Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn> > --- > net/nfc/nci/core.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c > index d2537383a3e8..32be42be1152 100644 > --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c > +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c > @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ int nci_set_config(struct nci_dev *ndev, __u8 id, size_t len, const __u8 *val) > if (!val || !len) > return 0; > > + memset(¶m, 0x0, sizeof(param)); > param.id = id; > param.len = len; > param.val = val; The entire 'param' is overwritten in later code, so what could leak here? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 01/03/2022 09:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 01/03/2022 09:17, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn> >> >> Use memset to initialize structs to preventing infoleaks >> in nci_set_config >> >> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn> One more thing. This report seems to be hidden, not public. Reported-by tag means someone reported something and you want to give credits for that. Using internal tool in a hidden, secret, non-public way does not fit open-source collaboration method. What is more: the email is invalid. "User unknown id" >> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi (CGEL ZTE) <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn> >> --- >> net/nfc/nci/core.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c >> index d2537383a3e8..32be42be1152 100644 >> --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c >> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c >> @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ int nci_set_config(struct nci_dev *ndev, __u8 id, size_t len, const __u8 *val) >> if (!val || !len) >> return 0; >> >> + memset(¶m, 0x0, sizeof(param)); >> param.id = id; >> param.len = len; >> param.val = val; > > The entire 'param' is overwritten in later code, so what could leak here? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Best regards, Krzysztof
hello sir I think this way: On 64-bit systems, struct nci_set_config_param has an added padding of 7 bytes between struct members id and len. Even though all struct members are initialized, the 7-byte hole will contain data from the kernel stack. thanks Minghao
On 01/03/2022 10:34, Lv Ruyi wrote: > hello sir > > I think this way: On 64-bit systems, struct nci_set_config_param has > an added padding of 7 bytes between struct members id and len. Even > though all struct members are initialized, the 7-byte hole will > contain data from the kernel stack. > That's reasonable. This explanation should be mentioned in the commit msg. Also just initialize the array to 0, instead of separate memset call. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c index d2537383a3e8..32be42be1152 100644 --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ int nci_set_config(struct nci_dev *ndev, __u8 id, size_t len, const __u8 *val) if (!val || !len) return 0; + memset(¶m, 0x0, sizeof(param)); param.id = id; param.len = len; param.val = val;