On 11/2/20 8:44 AM, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: > > On 02-11-2020 12:40, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 11/2/20 4:13 AM, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: >>> In canfd_rcv(), cfd->len is uninitialized when skb->len = 0, and this >>> uninitialized cfd->len is accessed nonetheless by pr_warn_once(). >>> >>> Fix this uninitialized variable access by checking cfd->len's validity >>> condition (cfd->len > CANFD_MAX_DLEN) separately after the skb->len's >>> condition is checked, and appropriately modify the log messages that >>> are generated as well. >>> In case either of the required conditions fail, the skb is freed and >>> NET_RX_DROP is returned, same as before. >>> >>> Reported-by: syzbot+9bcb0c9409066696d3aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Tested-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> This patch was locally tested using the reproducer and .config file >>> generated by syzbot. >>> >>> net/can/af_can.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c >>> index ea29a6d97ef5..1b9f2e50f065 100644 >>> --- a/net/can/af_can.c >>> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c >>> @@ -694,16 +694,25 @@ static int canfd_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev, >> Can you create a similar patch for "can_rcv()"? > > Yes, I can. Would it be alright if that was part of the v2 itself (since it's similar changes)? > Or would I have to split them up into 2 different patches and send it as a 2-patch series > (since the changes made are in different functions)? Please make it two patches. Please add a "Fixes" line to both patches. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
