From: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@nvidia.com>
To: Prathamesh Deshpande <prathameshdeshpande7@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@nvidia.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: Fix OOB access and stack information leak in PTP event handling
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 14:35:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c30f21a3-5a27-43fb-957d-107775b00faf@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260410015336.7353-1-prathameshdeshpande7@gmail.com>
On 10/04/2026 4:53, Prathamesh Deshpande wrote:
> In mlx5_pps_event(), several critical issues were identified during
> review by Sashiko:
>
> 1. The 'pin' index from the hardware event was used without bounds
> checking to index 'pin_config' and 'pps_info->start', leading to
> potential out-of-bounds memory access.
> 2. 'ptp_event' was not zero-initialized. Since it contains a union,
> assigning a timestamp partially leaves the 'ts_raw' field with
> uninitialized stack memory, which can leak kernel data or
> corrupt time sync logic in hardpps().
> 3. A NULL 'pin_config' could be dereferenced if initialization failed.
> 4. 'clock->ptp' could be NULL if ptp_clock_register() failed.
>
> Fix these by zero-initializing the event struct, adding a bounds
> check against n_pins, and adding appropriate NULL guards.
>
> Fixes: 7c39afb394c7 ("net/mlx5: PTP code migration to driver core section")
> Suggested-by: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Deshpande <prathameshdeshpande7@gmail.com>
> ---
> v3:
> - Fix union corruption by using a local timestamp variable [Sashiko].
> - Validate pin index against n_pins with WARN_ON_ONCE [Carolina].
> - Remove redundant pin < 0 check and cleanup TODO comment.
> v2:
> - Zero-initialize ptp_event to prevent stack information leak [Sashiko].
> - Add bounds check for hardware pin index to prevent OOB access [Sashiko].
> - Add NULL guard for pin_config to handle initialization failures [Sashiko].
> - Add NULL check for clock->ptp as originally intended.
>
> .../net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/clock.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/clock.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/clock.c
> index bd4e042077af..674dd048a6b8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/clock.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/clock.c
> @@ -1164,16 +1164,22 @@ static int mlx5_pps_event(struct notifier_block *nb,
> pps_nb);
> struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev = clock_state->mdev;
> struct mlx5_clock *clock = mdev->clock;
> - struct ptp_clock_event ptp_event;
> + struct ptp_clock_event ptp_event = {};
> struct mlx5_eqe *eqe = data;
> int pin = eqe->data.pps.pin;
> unsigned long flags;
> u64 ns;
>
> + if (!clock->ptp_info.pin_config)
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pin >= clock->ptp_info.n_pins))
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
Sorry if my previous comment wasn't clear enough.
The firmware will never report a pin higher than n_pins, thats not the
concern
here. if future hardware reports n_pins > 8, checking against n_pins
would still
allow OOB access on those arrays. The check should compare against
MAX_PIN_NUM
instead, since thats the actual hard limit of the driver's data
structures. and if a new
device supports more than 8 pins, the WARN_ON_ONCE would let us know we need
to update the driver.
Thanks,
Carolina
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-11 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-10 1:53 [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: Fix OOB access and stack information leak in PTP event handling Prathamesh Deshpande
2026-04-11 11:35 ` Carolina Jubran [this message]
2026-04-12 0:15 ` prathamesh deshpande
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=c30f21a3-5a27-43fb-957d-107775b00faf@nvidia.com \
--to=cjubran@nvidia.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbloch@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prathameshdeshpande7@gmail.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
/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