On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:05:16 +0000 Danielle Ratson wrote: > > GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK, and you can check it in the caller, before taking > > rtnl_lock. > > > > OK, np. The idea was to have module_flash_fw() that checks the attrs > and extract them into params and ethnl_act_module_fw_flash() should > be free from those checks. But if so, maybe this separation is > redundant and should combine the two? No strong preference, whatever looks better :) To use GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK() I think you'll need to pass genl_info here. You can either to that or move the validation. > > > + > > tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME], > > > + "File name attribute is missing"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + params.file_name = > > > + nla_data(tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME]); > > > > Hm. I think you copy the param struct by value to the work container. > > nla_data() is in the skb which is going to get freed after _ACT returns. > > So if anyone tries to access the name from the work it's going to UAF? > > The file_name parameter is not really needed inside the work. Once we > called request_firmware_direct(), we have all that we need in > module_fw->fw. Do we still need to avoid that situation? If so, can > you please suggest how? I'd pass it to module_flash_fw_schedule() as a separate argument, if it doesn't have to be saved.
