From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D80CD4851 for ; Fri, 15 May 2026 11:46:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=ZgM1c7vlOggNf08/JKOAMKYrGpPoODLSmiqgWyLbCjs=; b=S7wV+GFqpGWHw8wkw/+ZKqHf4u 1A786f8VRWiJpW52NEk64fvOQ33fRlx5LjcROSKSnLveDjGN/yqMtf5NxoUJq2sgGNJsrVS4vB8CQ CWVrxxnrk0KtWBLlYw85SN0ryXUENKtodd/zEaXc2PujAFYQcDtQYG7kaLxE1Xdxxgr3Omzm3rbA1 yNXlWngjeCJ6TC//pVpvK4eEXQBc3SvI517v2BqeHGg2sGeFWnA3nrI52gFQf+h259RgC6TsqMCeo Dq40fFpkdEMCEUg7K94VmO5ipa0+M2VuZg1gRndRW5xj4PjrCdwdCWxmcqC9qvCAMxDGUG2mPkKeo /M/gj0rw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wNr0H-00000008Eig-41ka; Fri, 15 May 2026 11:46:53 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wNr0F-00000008Ehf-31yY for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 15 May 2026 11:46:52 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FC91BF7; Fri, 15 May 2026 04:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D66303F85F; Fri, 15 May 2026 04:46:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1778845608; bh=woFbGz4cqB9LZc4NQu0SGqfw+B2Gzyz0AHx09mb7Jgk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ezykeqOHq74gbBxfBmz1XAgHhH985DTAdkwCTexwYxokU+8qcTvpCPpQxVm5EgPZt bbtwWb06+BrXKixBoEh7LsfGjWt/vChmEOL0+/6jISYZSR2EihEUqVrSvrHm6GHt76 yc7TOTcfH6GO1D2XEQd12TaiPi9YxPYucbm+jufo= Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 12:46:39 +0100 From: Cristian Marussi To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Dan Carpenter , Sudeep Holla , Cristian Marussi , arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix OOB in scmi_power_name_get() Message-ID: References: <75caae28bdffb55199a0bc6cac5df112a966c608.1778838987.git.geert+renesas@glider.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260515_044651_889561_FC9E8518 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.13 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Dan, > Hi all, > On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 12:28, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > scmi_power_name_get() does not validate the domain number passed by the > > > external caller, which may lead to an out-of-bounds access. > > > > Is an external caller an out of tree caller? So far as I can see this > > I meant a caller outside drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/. > > > is only called by scmi_pm_domain_probe(). > > > > scmi_pd->name = power_ops->name_get(ph, i); > > > > where i < num_domains. > > You are right. But this seems to be only API implementation in > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/ that does not validate the passed domain > number. > Yes we tend to validate protocol operations calls even if apparently safe from teh caller perspective...indeed I have this fixed locally since ages in an horrible patch, that does a lot more, and that I never posted :P Usually, if it is worth, we also build an internal domain get helper to reuse across the protocol unit...but here really there are only 2 call-sites. What I am not sure is what to return: "unknown" is safer as of now than NULL for sure, but really, what happened is NOT that the name was "unknown" (which by itself would be out-of-spec behaviour) it is more that the whole domain that was referred to that was invalid and NOT existent... ....mmm I suppose we are opening another can of worms here :P Thanks, Cristian