On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:40:07AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-07-31 at 08:55 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:58:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> > > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> > > neighboring fields.
> > >
> > > Use memset_after() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing
> > > beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point
> > > of zeroing through the end of the struct.
> > >
> > > Note that the common helper, ieee80211_tx_info_clear_status(), does NOT
> > > clear ack_signal, but the open-coded versions do. All three perform
> > > checks that the ack_signal position hasn't changed, though.
> >
> > Quick ping on this question: there is a mismatch between the common
> > helper and the other places that do this. Is there a bug here?
>
> Yes.
>
> The common helper should also clear ack_signal, but that was broken by
> commit e3e1a0bcb3f1 ("mac80211: reduce IEEE80211_TX_MAX_RATES"), because
> that commit changed the order of the fields and updated carl9170 and p54
> properly but not the common helper...
It looks like p54 actually uses the rates, which is why it does this
manually. I can't see why carl9170 does this manually, though.
> It doesn't actually matter much because ack_signal is normally filled in
> afterwards, and even if it isn't, it's just for statistics.
>
> The correct thing to do here would be to
>
> memset_after(&info->status, 0, rates);
Sounds good; I will adjust these (and drop the BULID_BUG_ONs, as you
suggest in the next email).
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
