Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix OOB in scmi_power_name_get()
Cristian Marussi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.arm-scmi,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <agcHnzzdhV36j9eH@pluto> |
On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Dan, > Hi all, > On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 12:28, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > scmi_power_name_get() does not validate the domain number passed by the > > > external caller, which may lead to an out-of-bounds access. > > > > Is an external caller an out of tree caller? So far as I can see this > > I meant a caller outside drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/. > > > is only called by scmi_pm_domain_probe(). > > > > scmi_pd->name = power_ops->name_get(ph, i); > > > > where i < num_domains. > > You are right. But this seems to be only API implementation in > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/ that does not validate the passed domain > number. > Yes we tend to validate protocol operations calls even if apparently safe from teh caller perspective...indeed I have this fixed locally since ages in an horrible patch, that does a lot more, and that I never posted :P Usually, if it is worth, we also build an internal domain get helper to reuse across the protocol unit...but here really there are only 2 call-sites. What I am not sure is what to return: "unknown" is safer as of now than NULL for sure, but really, what happened is NOT that the name was "unknown" (which by itself would be out-of-spec behaviour) it is more that the whole domain that was referred to that was invalid and NOT existent... ....mmm I suppose we are opening another can of worms here :P Thanks, Cristian