On Thu, 07 Jan, at 02:05:30PM, Insu Yun wrote: > snprintf's return value is not bound by size value. > (https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/kernel-api/API-snprintf.html) > if printed value is larger than buffer size, it can overwrite > null byte in out-of-bounds buffer. But this function doesn't use snprintf(), it uses scnprintf() which returns the number of characters written into buf and, because scnprintf() largely follows vnsprintf(), it will never write more than 'size' bytes into the buffer. > Signed-off-by: Insu Yun <wuninsu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c > index d425374..77aa75f 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c > @@ -267,7 +267,6 @@ static int cper_dimm_err_location(struct cper_mem_err_compact *mem, char *msg) > "DIMM location: not present. DMI handle: 0x%.4x ", > mem->mem_dev_handle); > > - msg[n] = '\0'; > return n; > } > Calling this a vulnerability is a little extreme. These fields come from firmware and if you can't trust the firmware you've got bigger issues. I'm not even sure this is a bug. Tony? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
