All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: "Doruk (0sec)" <doruk@0sec.ai>
Cc: david@ixit.cz, oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	david.laight.linux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:34:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260713153434.GI1364329@horms.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPdMp1omRz=vFN=CQsiXDbf+5W3SF-F8BGm3HuNeLpp1uS4UUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 03:42:10PM +0200, Doruk (0sec) wrote:
> > Would it make sense to either guard skb->len >= LLCP_HEADER_SIZE
> > before the two call sites, or take the same skb_tail_pointer() based
> > approach used in nfc_llcp_connect_sn()?
> 
> Thanks for the review Simon! I went with the first option in a separate patch,
> since I believe the missing minimum-length check affects every PDU type the
> dispatcher hands off, not just CONNECT/CC:
> 
> [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: guard against short PDUs in nfc_llcp_rx_skb()
> 
> It adds "if (skb->len < LLCP_HEADER_SIZE) return;" at the top of
> nfc_llcp_rx_skb(), so no handler can see a sub-header PDU and the
> "skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE" subtraction can no longer wrap. With that
> in place the connection-TLV parser's bound is safe. Happy to respin
> either patch if you'd prefer both changes squashed into one.

Thanks, a separate patch sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

...

      reply	other threads:[~2026-07-13 15:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-05 11:56 [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers Doruk Tan Ozturk
2026-07-10 13:48 ` Simon Horman
2026-07-11 13:42   ` Doruk (0sec)
2026-07-13 15:34     ` Simon Horman [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260713153434.GI1364329@horms.kernel.org \
    --to=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=david@ixit.cz \
    --cc=doruk@0sec.ai \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.