Make sure mwifiex_process_mgmt_packet and its callers
mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet and mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet
not out-of-bounds access the skb->data buffer.
Fixes: 2dbaf751b1de ("mwifiex: report received management frames to cfg80211")
Signed-off-by: pinkperfect <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_rx.c | 3 ++-
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_txrx.c | 10 +++-------
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c | 5 +++++
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_rx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_rx.c
index 13659b02ba88..88aaec645291 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_rx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_rx.c
@@ -194,7 +194,8 @@ int mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
rx_pkt_hdr = (void *)local_rx_pd + rx_pkt_offset;
- if ((rx_pkt_offset + rx_pkt_length) > (u16) skb->len) {
+ if ((rx_pkt_offset + rx_pkt_length) > (u16)skb->len ||
+ skb->len - rx_pkt_offset < sizeof(*rx_pkt_hdr)) {
mwifiex_dbg(adapter, ERROR,
"wrong rx packet: len=%d, rx_pkt_offset=%d, rx_pkt_length=%d\n",
skb->len, rx_pkt_offset, rx_pkt_length);
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_txrx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_txrx.c
index e495f7eaea03..f84ed22518c6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_txrx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_txrx.c
@@ -367,20 +367,15 @@ int mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
rx_pkt_type = le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_type);
rx_pkt_hdr = (void *)uap_rx_pd + le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_offset);
- ether_addr_copy(ta, rx_pkt_hdr->eth803_hdr.h_source);
-
if ((le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_offset) +
- le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_length)) > (u16) skb->len) {
+ le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_length)) > (u16)skb->len ||
+ skb->len - le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_offset) < sizeof(*rx_pkt_hdr)) {
mwifiex_dbg(adapter, ERROR,
"wrong rx packet: len=%d, offset=%d, length=%d\n",
skb->len, le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_offset),
le16_to_cpu(uap_rx_pd->rx_pkt_length));
priv->stats.rx_dropped++;
- node = mwifiex_get_sta_entry(priv, ta);
- if (node)
- node->stats.tx_failed++;
-
dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
return 0;
}
@@ -393,6 +388,7 @@ int mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
return ret;
}
+ ether_addr_copy(ta, rx_pkt_hdr->eth803_hdr.h_source);
if (rx_pkt_type != PKT_TYPE_BAR && uap_rx_pd->priority < MAX_NUM_TID) {
spin_lock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c
index 94c2d219835d..31e1a82883e4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/util.c
@@ -399,6 +399,11 @@ mwifiex_process_mgmt_packet(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
pkt_len = le16_to_cpu(rx_pd->rx_pkt_length);
+ if (pkt_len < sizeof(struct ieee80211_hdr) || skb->len < pkt_len) {
+ mwifiex_dbg(priv->adapter, ERROR, "invalid rx_pkt_length");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
ieee_hdr = (void *)skb->data;
if (ieee80211_is_mgmt(ieee_hdr->frame_control)) {
if (mwifiex_parse_mgmt_packet(priv, (u8 *)ieee_hdr,
--
2.25.1
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:44:56 +0800 Pink Perfect wrote:
> Sorry, forgot to change the signoff name, after you review this patch I can
> submit a new one
Do you mean change to "Pink Perfect", is that the name you'd sign
legal documents with?
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:37 AM pinkperfect <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Make sure mwifiex_process_mgmt_packet and its callers
> > mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet and mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet
> > not out-of-bounds access the skb->data buffer.
> >
> > Fixes: 2dbaf751b1de ("mwifiex: report received management frames to
> > cfg80211")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: pinkperfect <[email protected]>
No empty lines between tags, please.
You mentioned reporting the problem to chromeos, since mwifiex
"maintainters" seem to be AWoL, would someone from their team
possibly be willing to venture a review tag for the patch?
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:44:56 +0800 Pink Perfect wrote:
>> Sorry, forgot to change the signoff name, after you review this patch I can
>> submit a new one
>
> Do you mean change to "Pink Perfect", is that the name you'd sign
> legal documents with?
>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:37 AM pinkperfect <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Make sure mwifiex_process_mgmt_packet and its callers
>> > mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet and mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet
>> > not out-of-bounds access the skb->data buffer.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 2dbaf751b1de ("mwifiex: report received management frames to
>> > cfg80211")
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: pinkperfect <[email protected]>
>
> No empty lines between tags, please.
>
> You mentioned reporting the problem to chromeos, since mwifiex
> "maintainters" seem to be AWoL, would someone from their team
> possibly be willing to venture a review tag for the patch?
We have four maintainers for mwifiex and total silence:
MARVELL MWIFIEX WIRELESS DRIVER
M: Amitkumar Karwar <[email protected]>
M: Ganapathi Bhat <[email protected]>
M: Sharvari Harisangam <[email protected]>
M: Xinming Hu <[email protected]>
L: [email protected]
S: Maintained
F: drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/
I'm very close of marking this driver as orphan unless anyone steps up.
This is not how to maintain a driver.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:55:38 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
> > No empty lines between tags, please.
> >
> > You mentioned reporting the problem to chromeos, since mwifiex
> > "maintainters" seem to be AWoL, would someone from their team
> > possibly be willing to venture a review tag for the patch?
>
> We have four maintainers for mwifiex and total silence:
>
> MARVELL MWIFIEX WIRELESS DRIVER
> M: Amitkumar Karwar <[email protected]>
> M: Ganapathi Bhat <[email protected]>
> M: Sharvari Harisangam <[email protected]>
> M: Xinming Hu <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected]
> S: Maintained
> F: drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/
>
> I'm very close of marking this driver as orphan unless anyone steps up.
That seems more than justified at this point.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 09:55:38AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> We have four maintainers for mwifiex and total silence:
>
> MARVELL MWIFIEX WIRELESS DRIVER
> M: Amitkumar Karwar <[email protected]>
> M: Ganapathi Bhat <[email protected]>
> M: Sharvari Harisangam <[email protected]>
> M: Xinming Hu <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected]
> S: Maintained
> F: drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/
>
> I'm very close of marking this driver as orphan unless anyone steps up.
> This is not how to maintain a driver.
I'd be fully on board with removing these maintainers, as I don't recall
hearing from any of them in years. (In fact, some of these addresses
don't have a single mail logged on lore.kernel.org/all/...) I just
didn't want to be the one to say it.
On the other hand, I regularly look at pretty much anything for mwifiex,
as long as the submitter is in relatively good faith. So I wouldn't mind
being a Reviewer (or Maintainer? what's the difference, when Kalle
does the committing anyway?). And that might qualify as "Odd Fixes", as
I don't plan on doing much more than keeping the lights on.
I'll submit the MAINTAINERS patch if you'd like.
Brian
Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 09:55:38AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> We have four maintainers for mwifiex and total silence:
>>
>> MARVELL MWIFIEX WIRELESS DRIVER
>> M: Amitkumar Karwar <[email protected]>
>> M: Ganapathi Bhat <[email protected]>
>> M: Sharvari Harisangam <[email protected]>
>> M: Xinming Hu <[email protected]>
>> L: [email protected]
>> S: Maintained
>> F: drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/
>>
>> I'm very close of marking this driver as orphan unless anyone steps up.
>> This is not how to maintain a driver.
>
> I'd be fully on board with removing these maintainers, as I don't recall
> hearing from any of them in years. (In fact, some of these addresses
> don't have a single mail logged on lore.kernel.org/all/...) I just
> didn't want to be the one to say it.
>
> On the other hand, I regularly look at pretty much anything for mwifiex,
> as long as the submitter is in relatively good faith. So I wouldn't mind
> being a Reviewer (or Maintainer? what's the difference, when Kalle
> does the committing anyway?).
Heh, that's a good question. I don't know what was the original intent
for a reviewer role but in my view ideally a driver should 1-2
maintainers, no more, and if there are more people involved they should
be reviewers. And maintainers should use Acked-by, Reviewers should use
Reviewed-by. And if I see an Acked-by from a maintainer I usually don't
review the patch so closely and just take it directly (of there are
exceptions, as always). In this case I would prefer you being the
maintainer, even if you wouldn't have much time for mwifiex.
But I don't know how others see it. Jakub has been writing documentation
about maintainership which is also a good read:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> And that might qualify as "Odd Fixes", as
> I don't plan on doing much more than keeping the lights on.
>
> I'll submit the MAINTAINERS patch if you'd like.
Sounds very good to me, thank you! Please submit the patch if you can.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:15:25AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
> > I'll submit the MAINTAINERS patch if you'd like.
>
> Sounds very good to me, thank you! Please submit the patch if you can.
Done:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20230721160603.1.Idf0e8025f59c62d73c08960638249b58cf215acc@changeid/
Brian