On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:24:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Will McVicker wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 09:59:57AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 12:48:48AM +0000, Will McVicker wrote: > > > > The HID subsystem allows an "HID report field" to have a different > > > > number of "values" and "usages" when it is allocated. When a field > > > > struct is created, the size of the usage array is guaranteed to be at > > > > least as large as the values array, but it may be larger. This leads to > > > > a potential out-of-bounds write in > > > > __hidinput_change_resolution_multipliers() and an out-of-bounds read in > > > > hidinput_count_leds(). > > > > > > > > To fix this, let's make sure that both the usage and value arrays are > > > > the same size. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Any reason not to also add a cc: stable on this? > > No reason not to include stable. CC'd here. > > > > > > > > And, has this always been the case, or was this caused by some specific > > > commit in the past? If so, a "Fixes:" tag is always nice to included. > > I dug into the history and it's been like this for the past 10 years. So yeah > > pretty much always like this. > > > > > > > > And finally, as you have a fix for this already, no need to cc: > > > security@k.o as there's nothing the people there can do about it now :) > > Is that short for security@xxxxxxxxxx? If yes, then I did include them. If no, > > do you mind explaining? > > Yes, I see you included it, my point was that once you have a patch, > there is no need to include this email address as all we do at this > address is work to match up a problem with a developer that can create a > fix. You already did this, so no need for us to get involved at all! :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Ah okay, thanks for the explanation! --Will
