Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <926ccc54-6388-37be-0064-df3fd3972da2@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:33:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/nfc/nci: use memset avoid infoleaks
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
To:     cgel.zte@gmail.com
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
References: <20220301081750.2053246-1-chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
 <664af071-badf-5cc9-c065-c702b0c8a13d@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <664af071-badf-5cc9-c065-c702b0c8a13d@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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(&param, 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