From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <westeri@kernel.org>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@gmail.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] thunderbolt: validate DROM entry extents
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:26:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831092613.GE124825@black.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831065258.GC124825@black.igk.intel.com>
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 08:52:58AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:22:06PM +0800, Pengpeng Hou wrote:
> > The generic DROM walker can read a two-byte entry header from a one-byte
> > tail and accepts an entry whose declared length is shorter than that
> > header. Separately, the USB4 product descriptor parser reads a complete
> > struct tb_drom_entry_desc without requiring that structure to be present.
> >
> > Split those contracts into two patches. The descriptor check now uses
> > sizeof(*desc), as requested by Mika Westerberg, instead of spelling out
> > the fields manually.
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260731141700.3-thunderbolt-v2-pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn/
> > - split the generic entry and USB4 descriptor checks
> > - validate the USB4 entry with sizeof(*desc)
> > - rebase and re-review against the current tree
> >
> > The series was reviewed statically. I did not test it with malformed
> > device DROM data.
> >
> > Pengpeng Hou (2):
> > thunderbolt: require complete DROM entry headers
> > thunderbolt: validate USB4 product descriptor entry size
>
> I dropped the Fixes tag, I think these are more like improvements. In
> addition I changed the first patch to use const where possible. Please
> check that it makes sense for you.
>
> Both applied to thunderbolt.git/next, thanks!
Now I actualy tested this and this:
thunderbolt: validate USB4 product descriptor entry size
fails now on my test system, I think because the structure is actually
larger due to alignment and so. Dropped this patch now. If you want to
revisit then I think the correct check is against what the spec says for
this entry (e.g it must be 15).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 15:22 [PATCH v3 0/2] thunderbolt: validate DROM entry extents Pengpeng Hou
2026-08-13 15:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] thunderbolt: require complete DROM entry headers Pengpeng Hou
2026-08-13 15:25 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] thunderbolt: validate USB4 product descriptor entry size Pengpeng Hou
2026-08-31 6:52 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] thunderbolt: validate DROM entry extents Mika Westerberg
2026-08-31 9:26 ` Mika Westerberg [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=20260831092613.GE124825@black.igk.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=YehezkelShB@gmail.com \
--cc=andreas.noever@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn \
--cc=westeri@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