Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83333-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:26:26 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Carlos =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=F3pez?= <clopez@suse.de>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@gmail.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2023-52466: PCI: Avoid potential out-of-bounds read in
 pci_dev_for_each_resource()
Message-ID: <2024022709-magazine-handshake-50da@gregkh>
References: <2024022544-CVE-2023-52466-fea5@gregkh>
 <084e7c38-ebce-4091-af40-42283e344ccc@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <084e7c38-ebce-4091-af40-42283e344ccc@suse.de>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:18:51PM +0100, Carlos L?pez wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 25/2/24 9:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > There is no actual issue right now because we have another check afterwards
> > and the out-of-bounds read is not being performed. In any case it's better
> > code with this fixed, hence the proposed change.
> 
> Given that there is no actual security issue this looks more like a
> hardening, and thus not deserving of a CVE, no?

This was a tricky one, I think it's needed as we do not know how people
are really using these macros, right?  If the PCI maintainer agrees (on
the cc:), I'll be glad to revoke it, it's their call.

And thanks for the review, much appreciated!

greg k-h