On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:42:14AM +0100, Wim de With wrote:
> On 10-12-2015 10:37, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:11:12AM +0100, Wim de With wrote:
> >> @@ -482,8 +483,16 @@ static int gdm_wimax_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, 
> >> struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd)
> >>                            /* NOTE: gdm_update_fsm should be called
> >>                             * before gdm_wimax_ioctl_set_data is called.
> >>                             */
> >> -                          gdm_update_fsm(dev,
> >> -                                         req->data.buf);
> >> +                          fsm_buf = kmalloc(sizeof(fsm_s), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +                          if (!fsm_buf)
> >> +                                  return -ENOMEM;
> >> +                          if (copy_from_user(fsm_buf, req->data.buf,
> >> +                                             sizeof(fsm_s))) {
> >> +                                  kfree(fsm_buf);
> >> +                                  return -EFAULT;
> >> +                          }
> >> +                          gdm_update_fsm(dev, fsm_buf);
> >> +                          kfree(fsm_buf);
> > 
> > 
> > No.  This change is a bug.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> > 
> 
> But what if I just keep it as:
> 
>       gdm_update_fsm(dev, req->data.buf)
> 
> Then it would just trust a __user pointer right?

I appologize, I didn't read the patch carefully.  This is a bugfix.  Can
you resend the patch with a better patch description where you replace
the last paragraph and say:

Once I updated the Sparse annotations, I noticed a bug in
gdm_wimax_ioctl() where we pass a user space pointer to gdm_update_fsm()
which dereferences it.  I fixed this.

regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Reply via email to