Re: [PATCH] ACPI: pfr_telemetry: Fix info leak in pfrt_log_ioctl()

[Chen Yu]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 04:39:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 7:17 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 09:46:17PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 10:34:07AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > The "data_info" struct is copied to the user.  It has a 4 byte struct
> > > > hole after the last struct member so we need to memset that to avoid
> > > > copying uninitialized stack data to the user.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: b0013e037a8b ("ACPI: Introduce Platform Firmware Runtime Telemetry driver")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > When you're adding a new driver to the kernel then please use the new
> > > > driver's prefix instead of just the subsystem prefix.
> > > >
> > > >  Bad: ACPI: Introduce Platform Firmware Runtime Telemetry driver
> > > > Good: ACPI / pfr_telemetry: Introduce Platform Firmware Runtime Telemetry driver
> > > >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out.
> > > > Otherwise it's just up to me to guess what prefix you wanted.
> > > >
> > > >  drivers/acpi/pfr_telemetry.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pfr_telemetry.c b/drivers/acpi/pfr_telemetry.c
> > > > index da50dd80192c..9abf350bd7a5 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/pfr_telemetry.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pfr_telemetry.c
> > > > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static int get_pfrt_log_data_info(struct pfrt_log_data_info *data_info,
> > > >     union acpi_object *out_obj, in_obj, in_buf;
> > > >     int ret = -EBUSY;
> > > >
> > > > +   memset(data_info, 0, sizeof(*data_info));
> > > Just one minor question, how about moving above before:
> > > data_info->status = out_obj->package.elements[LOG_STATUS_IDX].integer.value;
> > > after the sanity check of the _DSM result?
> >
> > I guess I wanted to keep all the memsets together.  I feel like if the
> > data is invalid, then it's going to be a slow path and it's not worth
> > optimizing that case.  If the data is invalid then a little slow down is
> > the least of our concerns.
> 
> Patch applied, thanks!
> 
> Yu, this series needs to spend a few days more in linux-next, because
> of the fixes against it sent lately.
Ok, I see.

thanks,
Chenyu