From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail11.truemail.it (mail11.truemail.it [217.194.8.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C72C399897; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783668118; cv=none; b=sH3fo02QY/mpe+Ne7vfj0eqVAKP3VjitIepQ7cr4S+i048NOkcVs18W6DmLR9U4t0fWLzcP05s2N8BEkfMSVQ0eIsphGRX/r4BZXl4vVZ41yLrSTQ4Oo5JY4CAJltAh2LgCiVIOHwrgrToDik7gZGYQ+m6DajCeEcVU7J39FXUs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783668118; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uU9BCEeNLaY2/FaO7XUYT2Buvtu/Ccj7D8yRIZWVqjw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=b+6c0QghkQ4CkBd4u3uUBl7GMn09E+INjaf6PdUnJsgvwF+Z6HWCOhfrFEtnHEXcn11MdpQarHgUO/GznKGbJVZyGjL0JTLxTWwK1gsOJwtpPhu/svPSMOA+CE/lTxYCDA8QWeWApOfPVlu2V/jd0tvn7WLn5MfoO9FpCgXWdjM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b=WRiwlenz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b="WRiwlenz" Received: from francesco-nb (2-224-10-13.ip168.fastwebnet.it [2.224.10.13]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DAF9122D89; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:21:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1783668105; bh=LxRI6Fmp0TeW1aH+Cx22+HIlW4OpT07Exwi65OCIuXo=; h=From:To:Subject; b=WRiwlenzEGDT/RqHU0R2aGfQyfX3wzfTiDFEWKAeaBk1gJxCVF3+wHOF4DhkVE6J3 w0g0HgZbbTyLx0e9NoO02uXIFCF8GagvIho1DSfRu/cByc/JECVzeJffwyWrOBszy2 0qrMhRHruEBt01ZTxEDTXTN7xdNcP0dYNvFRAkZ3BdS5rEMLh3WWA9Sq6dc/WGY7tx oniTwQ2Tp+b9wz39RruNYtOJUyIxY/2jPh/Gx8XAAyrLKQfGCKAz7D2UyEnm/4Ryx4 f0D5e3zKusowSMCSb7s5Et6YArDA/6zHj6X/Sd8Lc2pTlwL4/umTNLrIpsTPBsTs/y GjDZFYwTAHUYw== Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:21:40 +0200 From: Francesco Dolcini To: HE WEI =?utf-8?B?KOOCruOCq+OCryk=?= , Brian Norris , Johannes Berg Cc: Brian Norris , Francesco Dolcini , Miri Korenblit , Johannes Berg , Kalle Valo , Kees Cook , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mwifiex: bound uAP association event IEs to the event buffer Message-ID: <20260710072140.GA17790@francesco-nb> References: <20260629120333.94222-1-skyexpoc@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260629120333.94222-1-skyexpoc@gmail.com> Hello Brian, Johannes On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:03:33PM +0900, HE WEI (ギカク) wrote: > mwifiex_process_uap_event() handles EVENT_UAP_STA_ASSOC by exposing the > (re)association request IEs that the firmware copies into the event: > > sinfo->assoc_req_ies = &event->data[len]; > len = (u8 *)sinfo->assoc_req_ies - (u8 *)&event->frame_control; > sinfo->assoc_req_ies_len = le16_to_cpu(event->len) - (u16)len; > > event->len is supplied by the device firmware and is never validated, I think we received a few patches that are validating the data received from the firmware (including this one). I did not review any of them yet, what is your opinion on those? Should we consider the firmware trust-worth or should we validate everything we receive from it? Is there some agreement on this topic in general? Francesco