From: Laxman Acharya Padhya <acharyalaxman8848@gmail.com>
To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_codec: validate vendor codec count length
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 20:25:51 +0545 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260824144051.50010-1-acharyalaxman8848@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABBYNZ+h-m9YQCim5Zm2_sgARZh+jM=POFYX_zTQ=xYUdxz-vw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Luiz,
You are right that sizeof(*vnd_codecs) and
sizeof(vnd_codecs->num) are both one byte here. The issue is the order
in which the existing check performs the access: vnd_codecs->num must
be evaluated as the count argument to flex_array_size() before the
result can be compared with skb->len.
For example, consider a V1 reply containing exactly these three bytes:
status = 0, std_codecs->num = 1, std_codecs->codec[0]
It passes the initial sizeof(*rp) check. After pulling the status byte,
the standard codec length check also passes, and pulling that array
leaves skb->len equal to zero. The existing vendor length check then
evaluates vnd_codecs->num with vnd_codecs pointing at the end of the
skb data.
The added check uses sizeof(), whose operand is not evaluated, to make
sure the count byte is present before the following expression reads
vnd_codecs->num. The V2 parser has the same ordering issue.
Thanks,
Laxman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-24 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-23 16:16 [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_codec: validate vendor codec count length Laxman Acharya Padhya
2026-08-23 17:18 ` bluez.test.bot
2026-08-24 14:28 ` [PATCH] " Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2026-08-24 14:40 ` Laxman Acharya Padhya [this message]
2026-08-24 15:01 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2026-08-24 15:20 ` Laxman Acharya Padhya
2026-08-24 15:31 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2026-08-24 15:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Laxman Acharya Padhya
2026-08-24 16:54 ` [v2] " bluez.test.bot
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=20260824144051.50010-1-acharyalaxman8848@gmail.com \
--to=acharyalaxman8848@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox