On 12/19/23 17:25, Kalle Valo wrote:
GCC 13.2 warns:
drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c:128:34: warning: '%s' directive output may be truncated writing up to 39 bytes into a region of size 32 [-Wformat-truncation=]
drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c:128:33: note: directive argument in the range [0, 16777215]
drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c:128:33: note: directive argument in the range [0, 255]
drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c:127:17: note: 'snprintf' output between 7 and 52 bytes into a destination of size 32
The issue here is that wiphy->fw_version is 32 bytes and in theory the string
we try to place there can be 39 bytes.
Puh, I've been looking into /lib/vsprintf.c. Looking at the code, it seems
that it goes like this:
snprintf() -> vsnprintf() -> case FORMAT_TYPE_STR: -> string() -> string_nocheck():
| [...]
| if (buf < end)
| *buf = c;
| [...]
which dutifully checks for overruns (i.e. before writing into the buffer=wiphy->fw_version).
So, thankfully no blind memcpy/strcpy is taking place here.
Though, I don't know if this could be used for speculation attacks.
wiphy->fw_version is used for providing
the firmware version to user space via ethtool, so not really important.
fw_version in theory can be 24 bytes but in practise it's shorter, so even if
print only 19 bytes via ethtool there should not be any practical difference.
I did consider removing fw_var from the string altogether or making the maximum
length for fw_version 19 bytes, but chose this approach as it was the least
intrusive.
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx>
|ethtool -i wlx0014a535e989
|driver: p54usb
|version: 6.7.0-rc6-wt+
|firmware-version: 2.13.25.0 - 5.9
|expansion-rom-version:
|bus-info: 5-2:1.0
|supports-statistics: yes
|supports-test: no
|supports-eeprom-access: no
|supports-register-dump: no
|supports-priv-flags: no
(yes, this doesn't change the output of ethtool. The firmware version is indeed
much much shorter than 24 bytes for the firmwares I know of.)
To be honest, I would write something like: "This patch silences gcc" in the commit
message. Rather than trying to come up with a well-intended justification. But I get
why this happens. That said, I would like to see gcc envolve... And maybe then it
will add warnings that go in the other direction (i.e. it will complain that
this %.19s was unnecessary here) :D.
Acked-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxx> (Tested with Dell 1450 USB)
Regards,
Christian
---
drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c
index b52cce38115d..c4fe70e05b9b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/fwio.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ int p54_parse_firmware(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, const struct firmware *fw)
"FW rev %s - Softmac protocol %x.%x\n",
fw_version, priv->fw_var >> 8, priv->fw_var & 0xff);
snprintf(dev->wiphy->fw_version, sizeof(dev->wiphy->fw_version),
- "%s - %x.%x", fw_version,
+ "%.19s - %x.%x", fw_version,
priv->fw_var >> 8, priv->fw_var & 0xff);
}
base-commit: 4e87ca403e2008b9e182239e1abbf6876a55eb33
