On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Thanks. This is great. I'm so glad these are finally getting fixed.
>>>
>>> Do we need to fix nfc_hci_msg_rx_work() and nfc_hci_recv_from_llc() as
>>> well? In nfc_hci_recv_from_llc() we allow pipe to be NFC_HCI_FRAGMENT
>>> (0x7f) so that's one element beyond the end of the array and the
>>> NFC_HCI_HCP_RESPONSE isn't checked.
>>>
>>> Also nci_hci_msg_rx_work() and nci_hci_data_received_cb() use
>>> NCI_HCP_MSG_GET_PIPE() so those could be off by one.
>>
>> Good point. From hci.h:
>>
>> /*
>> * According to specification 102 622 chapter 4.4 Pipes,
>> * the pipe identifier is 7 bits long.
>> */
>> #define NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES 127
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> struct nfc_hci_dev {
>> ...
>> struct nfc_hci_pipe pipes[NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES];
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> I think the correct fix would be to change it to:
>>
>> struct nfc_hci_pipe pipes[NFC_HCI_MAX_PIPES + 1];
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> Just to be clear, this would fix the problem Dan described in his
> reply and it should be implemented in a separate patch. The original
> fix is still valid.
I think you could merge the fixes into a single patch.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
