Le 12/08/2019 à 05:57, David Miller a écrit :
From: Christophe JAILLET
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:16:40 +0200
In 'st_nci_i2c_read()', we allocate a sk_buff with a size of
ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE + len.
However, later on, we first 'skb_reserve()' ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE bytes, then
we 'skb_put()' ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE bytes.
Finally, if 'len' is not 0, we 'skb_put()' 'len' bytes.
So we use ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE*2 + len bytes.
This is incorrect and should already panic. I guess that it does not occur
because of extra memory allocated because of some rounding.
Fix it and allocate enough room for the 'skb_reserve()' and the 'skb_put()'
calls.
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET
---
This patch is LIKELY INCORRECT. So think twice to what is the correct
solution before applying it.
Maybe the skb_reserve should be axed or some other sizes are incorrect.
There seems to be an issue, that's all I can say.
The skb_reserve() should be removed,
I don't fully understand the potential implications, but looks ok to me.
At least, the allocated memory and the size of the used memory would match.
What I don't understand is why is does not BUG_ON with the current code.
Does my suspected "over allocation" because of rounding/aligment could
hide the issue?
A Tested-by: by someone who has the corresponding hardware would also be
useful IMHO.
and the second memcpy() should remove
the " + ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE".
Hmm, not sure on this one.
The skb is manipulated only with skb_put. So only the tail pointer and
len are updated. The data pointer remains at the same position, so there
should effectively be an offset of ST_NCI_I2C_MIN_SIZE for the 2nd memcpy.
Maybe, using skb_put_data would be cleaner here, in order to
"concatenate" these 2 parts without having to handle by hand the right
position in the buffer.
If you agree, I'll send a V2.
Thx for the review and comments.
CJ
This SKB just get sent down to ndlc_recv() so the content returned from I2C
should places at skb->data to be processed.
Pretty clear this code was never tested.
