Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759434AbcDBBEw (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:04:52 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:54592 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932953AbcDBA5S (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:57:18 -0400 From: Kamal Mostafa To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "David S . Miller" , Kamal Mostafa Subject: [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 142/170] ath9k: fix buffer overrun for ar9287 Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 17:53:48 -0700 Message-Id: <1459558456-24452-143-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1459558456-24452-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> References: <1459558456-24452-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> X-Extended-Stable: 3.19 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3025 Lines: 71 3.19.8-ckt18 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ---8<------------------------------------------------------------ From: Arnd Bergmann commit 83d6f1f15f8cce844b0a131cbc63e444620e48b5 upstream. Code that was added back in 2.6.38 has an obvious overflow when accessing a static array, and at the time it was added only a code comment was put in front of it as a reminder to have it reviewed properly. This has not happened, but gcc-6 now points to the specific overflow: drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c: In function 'ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs': drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c:483:44: error: array subscript is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds] maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4]; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ It turns out that the correct array length exists in the local 'intercepts' variable of this function, so we can just use that instead of hardcoding '4', so this patch changes all three instances to use that variable. The other two instances were already correct, but it's more consistent this way. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Fixes: 940cd2c12ebf ("ath9k_hw: merge the ar9287 version of ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs") Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c index 971d770..2ac0548 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c @@ -408,10 +408,9 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah, if (match) { if (AR_SREV_9287(ah)) { - /* FIXME: array overrun? */ for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) { minPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0]; - maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4]; + maxPwrT4[i] = data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1]; ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i], data_9287[idxL].pwrPdg[i], data_9287[idxL].vpdPdg[i], @@ -421,7 +420,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah, } else if (eeprom_4k) { for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) { minPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0]; - maxPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4]; + maxPwrT4[i] = data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1]; ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i], data_4k[idxL].pwrPdg[i], data_4k[idxL].vpdPdg[i], @@ -431,7 +430,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_get_gain_boundaries_pdadcs(struct ath_hw *ah, } else { for (i = 0; i < numXpdGains; i++) { minPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][0]; - maxPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][4]; + maxPwrT4[i] = data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i][intercepts - 1]; ath9k_hw_fill_vpd_table(minPwrT4[i], maxPwrT4[i], data_def[idxL].pwrPdg[i], data_def[idxL].vpdPdg[i], -- 2.7.4