From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpbguseast1.qq.com (smtpbguseast1.qq.com [54.204.34.129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0AC9143C67 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2024 06:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.204.34.129 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720161574; cv=none; b=el/c1Rhjq13hofKczl4GU6m8/Gz7EA70zcKBcbCKg5ax4vypDCWJnbs9E/rt1fQcCpLj4Y8aq/wxVvOKom0ZcqvUI2c71WYh4LnViEwleFmR3mNKVdlwCZeIrV1Cr4zvrqGYB3zaZQWEKCqiuhYrKWqiKFH9ceMSYtZEGq06PsM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720161574; c=relaxed/simple; bh=T6WXve0n+9VmVGeDaboQtLJzrhucQ2UYIegpdvEOqWw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=eiuIT073LqsysAO573XrzR+ZFvn9mRZGralme+eVn3RXnLd2Opo8MfwmnjpwiHQpKofVJ/Y64ayVn109D7UFZGJXLRmvyLSm8zS7faueoPyEAnBVE147wMRrWb60klqIm/hUjEVDAK1amDzwhQ4yUpZ9V3LVhCDf0oUYtvZNiKM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=uniontech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uniontech.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.204.34.129 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=uniontech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uniontech.com X-QQ-mid: bizesmtp78t1720161421tw7m3sff X-QQ-Originating-IP: LYIHzovVFZOArs2YxlwrPYbU/gSDF54QBMa15JEv6mY= Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [113.57.152.160]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:37:00 +0800 (CST) X-QQ-SSF: 0000000000000000000000000000000 X-QQ-GoodBg: 1 X-BIZMAIL-ID: 18219518563782160415 From: tuhaowen To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: alexander.deucher@amd.com, huangbibo@uniontech.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, tuhaowen@uniontech.com, wangyuli@uniontech.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] dev/parport: fix the array out-of-bounds risk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 14:36:58 +0800 Message-Id: <20240705063658.8782-1-tuhaowen@uniontech.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 In-Reply-To: <2024070413-obsessive-stack-7c62@gregkh> References: <2024070413-obsessive-stack-7c62@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:uniontech.com:qybglogicsvrgz:qybglogicsvrgz8a-1 On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 06:07:47PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > Usually because no one actually has this hardware anymore :) > > Can you also properly test the buffer size when writing into it so that > even if the math is incorrect, it will not overflow? As of now, I have encountered these three devices: BUNET BU1L02, EB-LINK EB-2C1B01, and SYBA FG-EMT03A-N. When these PCIe to parallel port cards are installed, the system experiences abnormal reboots. I am not sure if there are other devices with these issues. Below is the stack trace I encountered during the actual issue: [ 66.575408s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,4]Kernel panic - not syncing: stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: do_hardware_base_addr+0xcc/0xd0 [parport] [ 66.575408s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,5]CPU: 4 PID: 5118 Comm: QThread Tainted: G S W O 5.10.97-arm64-desktop #7100.57021.2 [ 66.575439s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,6]TGID: 5087 Comm: EFileApp [ 66.575439s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,7]Hardware name: HUAWEI HUAWEI QingYun PGUX-W515x-B081/SP1PANGUXM, BIOS 1.00.07 04/29/2024 [ 66.575439s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,8]Call trace: [ 66.575469s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,9] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1c0 [ 66.575469s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,0] show_stack+0x14/0x20 [ 66.575469s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,1] dump_stack+0xd4/0x10c [ 66.575500s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,2] panic+0x1d8/0x3bc [ 66.575500s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,3] __stack_chk_fail+0x2c/0x38 [ 66.575500s] [pid:5118,cpu4,QThread,4] do_hardware_base_addr+0xcc/0xd0 [parport] The array buffer size is 20 bytes. When executing code in a 64-bit CPU environment, up to 44 bytes of data will be written into this array (the size of "%lu\t%lu\n" is 21 + 1 + 21 + 1). This modification will resolve the current issue without introducing new problems. Thanks, Haowen.Tu