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@google.com
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@kernel.org? If yes, then I did include them. If no, do you mind explaining?
thanks,
greg k-h
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@google.com
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@kernel.org? 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
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@google.com
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@kernel.org? 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
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
Will McVicker