From: ultracoolguy@tutanota.com
To: Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de>, Pavel <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Dmurphy <dmurphy@ti.com>, Marek Behun <kabel@blackhole.sk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Leds <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:14:27 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MItjEho--3-2@tutanota.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201005164808.slrtmsvmw4pvwppm@falbala.internal.home.lespocky.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4111 bytes --]
Agh. I added the Signed-off-by in an earlier non-published version of the commit, but forgot to add it back. But that doesn't really excuses me.
I attached the (hopefully) final version of this patch. Pavel, I'll send the struct rename separately after I submit this.
Oct 5, 2020, 16:48 by post@lespocky.de:
> Hei hei,
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:35:38PM +0200, ultracoolguy@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>> Well, the major benefit I see is that it makes the driver slightly
>> more readable. However I'm fine with whatever you guys decide.
>>
>> I'll attach the patch with the struct renaming removed just in case.
>>
>
> Note: your patch, especially the commit message, still needs a
> Signed-off-by line. Please read [1] (again?) and resend.
>
> Greets
> Alex
>
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
>
>> Oct 5, 2020, 14:41 by dmurphy@ti.com:
>>
>> > Gabriel
>> >
>> > On 10/5/20 9:38 AM, ultracoolguy@tutanota.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I understand. So I should leave it like it was and do the rename in another patch?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You should do the fix in one patch and leave the structure name alone.
>> >
>> > The structure naming if fine and has no benefit and actually will make it more difficult for others to backport future fixes.
>> >
>> > Unless Pavel finds benefit in accepting the structure rename.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>>
>> >From ee004d26bb2f91491141aa06f5518cc411711ff0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ultracoolguy <ultracoolguy@tutanota.com>
>> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:27:00 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] leds:lm3697:Fix out-of-bound access
>>
>> If both led banks aren't used in device tree,
>> an out-of-bounds condition in lm3697_init occurs
>> because of the for loop assuming that all the banks are used.
>> Fix it by adding a variable that contains the number of used banks.
>> ---
>> drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
>> index 024983088d59..bd53450050b2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
>> @@ -78,8 +78,9 @@ struct lm3697 {
>> struct mutex lock;
>>
>> int bank_cfg;
>> + int num_banks;
>>
>> - struct lm3697_led leds[];
>> + struct lm3697_led banks[];
>> };
>>
>> static const struct reg_default lm3697_reg_defs[] = {
>> @@ -180,8 +181,8 @@ static int lm3697_init(struct lm3697 *priv)
>> if (ret)
>> dev_err(&priv->client->dev, "Cannot write OUTPUT config\n");
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < LM3697_MAX_CONTROL_BANKS; i++) {
>> - led = &priv->leds[i];
>> + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_banks; i++) {
>> + led = &priv->banks[i];
>> ret = ti_lmu_common_set_ramp(&led->lmu_data);
>> if (ret)
>> dev_err(&priv->client->dev, "Setting the ramp rate failed\n");
>> @@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ static int lm3697_probe_dt(struct lm3697 *priv)
>> goto child_out;
>> }
>>
>> - led = &priv->leds[i];
>> + led = &priv->banks[i];
>>
>> ret = ti_lmu_common_get_brt_res(&priv->client->dev,
>> child, &led->lmu_data);
>> @@ -307,16 +308,17 @@ static int lm3697_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> int ret;
>>
>> count = device_get_child_node_count(&client->dev);
>> - if (!count) {
>> - dev_err(&client->dev, "LEDs are not defined in device tree!");
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + if (!count || count > LM3697_MAX_CONTROL_BANKS) {
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, struct_size(led, leds, count),
>> + led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, struct_size(led, banks, count),
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!led)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> + led->num_banks = count;
>> +
>> mutex_init(&led->lock);
>> i2c_set_clientdata(client, led);
>>
>> --
>> 2.28.0
>>
>
>
> --
> /"\ ASCII RIBBON | »With the first link, the chain is forged. The first
> \ / CAMPAIGN | speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the
> X AGAINST | first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.«
> / \ HTML MAIL | (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie)
>
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-leds-lm3697-Fix-out-of-bound-access.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2226 bytes --]
From 146c98f0a0227fc3e11ffe6e66f0f7cf8aaebc69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gabriel David <ultracoolguy@tutanota.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:27:00 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] leds:lm3697:Fix out-of-bound access
If both led banks aren't used in device tree,
an out-of-bounds condition in lm3697_init occurs
because of the for loop assuming that all the banks are used.
Fix it by adding a variable that contains the number of used banks.
Signed-off-by: Gabriel David <ultracoolguy@tutanota.com>
---
drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
index 024983088d59..a3c44b4c9072 100644
--- a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
+++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3697.c
@@ -78,8 +78,9 @@ struct lm3697 {
struct mutex lock;
int bank_cfg;
+ int num_banks;
- struct lm3697_led leds[];
+ struct lm3697_led banks[];
};
static const struct reg_default lm3697_reg_defs[] = {
@@ -180,8 +181,8 @@ static int lm3697_init(struct lm3697 *priv)
if (ret)
dev_err(&priv->client->dev, "Cannot write OUTPUT config\n");
- for (i = 0; i < LM3697_MAX_CONTROL_BANKS; i++) {
- led = &priv->leds[i];
+ for (i = 0; i < priv->num_banks; i++) {
+ led = &priv->banks[i];
ret = ti_lmu_common_set_ramp(&led->lmu_data);
if (ret)
dev_err(&priv->client->dev, "Setting the ramp rate failed\n");
@@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ static int lm3697_probe_dt(struct lm3697 *priv)
goto child_out;
}
- led = &priv->leds[i];
+ led = &priv->banks[i];
ret = ti_lmu_common_get_brt_res(&priv->client->dev,
child, &led->lmu_data);
@@ -307,16 +308,16 @@ static int lm3697_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
int ret;
count = device_get_child_node_count(&client->dev);
- if (!count) {
- dev_err(&client->dev, "LEDs are not defined in device tree!");
- return -ENODEV;
- }
+ if (!count || count > LM3697_MAX_CONTROL_BANKS)
+ return -EINVAL;
- led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, struct_size(led, leds, count),
+ led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, struct_size(led, banks, count),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!led)
return -ENOMEM;
+ led->num_banks = count;
+
mutex_init(&led->lock);
i2c_set_clientdata(client, led);
--
2.28.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-05 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-03 13:02 [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access ultracoolguy
2020-10-03 13:56 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-03 14:43 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 12:13 ` Marek Behun
2020-10-05 13:50 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-05 13:57 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 14:33 ` Dan Murphy
2020-10-05 14:37 ` Dan Murphy
2020-10-05 14:38 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 14:41 ` Dan Murphy
2020-10-05 15:35 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 16:05 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-05 16:48 ` Alexander Dahl
2020-10-05 17:14 ` ultracoolguy [this message]
2020-10-05 17:32 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-05 18:29 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 18:31 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-05 18:39 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-05 18:48 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-06 7:33 ` Marek Behun
2020-10-06 11:59 ` ultracoolguy
2020-10-06 12:21 ` Dan Murphy
2020-10-06 14:41 ` Marek Behun
2020-10-06 14:57 ` Dan Murphy
2020-10-06 15:14 ` Marek Behun
2020-10-06 17:26 ` Pavel Machek
2020-10-05 15:59 ` Pavel Machek
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=MItjEho--3-2@tutanota.com \
--to=ultracoolguy@tutanota.com \
--cc=dmurphy@ti.com \
--cc=kabel@blackhole.sk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-leds@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=post@lespocky.de \
/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.