On October 23, 2018 7:53:51 AM PDT, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:19:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin (Intel) wrote:
From: "H. Peter Anvin" hpa@zytor.com
On architectures with CBAUDEX == 0 (Alpha and PowerPC), the code in
tty_baudrate.c does
not do any limit checking on the tty_baudrate[] array, and in fact a buffer overrun is possible on both architectures. Add a limit check
to
prevent that situation.
This will be followed by a much bigger cleanup/simplification patch.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) hpa@zytor.com Requested-by: Cc: Johan Hovold johan@kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Jiri Slaby jslaby@suse.com Cc: Al Viro viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: Richard Henderson rth@twiddle.net Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru Cc: Matt Turner mattst88@gmail.com Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Kate Stewart kstewart@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Philippe Ombredanne pombredanne@nexb.com Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Eugene Syromiatnikov esyr@redhat.com Cc: linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Cc: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/tty/tty_baudrate.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
As I think Al's big termios cleanups are going to be hitting Linus's tree soon, do you know how these patches interact with that?
This patch seems like it will not, so I'll be glad to queue that up after my first round of patches get merged to Linus later this week, but the second one worries me.
thanks,
greg k-h
I have been working with Al; we had approached much the same problems but from different directions. Mine ended up being a bit more comprehensive as a result, so I think we're going to end up using my code with Al's reviews.
So bottom line is that it should be all good.