Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: properly validate the data in rtw_get_ie_ex()
From: Navaneeth K
Date: Mon Feb 23 2026 - 10:24:08 EST
I don't have the physical RTL8723BS hardware on hand anymore to test a live connection, but I was able to verify your logic thoroughly in user-space.
To be absolutely sure, I extracted both the old and patched functions into a standalone C harness and ran them through Asan and AFL++.
Feeding a crafted 5-byte allocation(with a lying length byte) to the old code predictably triggered a 47-byte heap-buffer-overflow right at the memcpy.
Against your patched code, I ran that same payload along with 20 other edge-case tests (1-byte buffers, empty bodies, OUI boundary mismatches, etc.). It cleanly rejected all of them with zero ASan errors.
I also compiled the patched function as an AFL++ target and let it freely mutate the EID, length, and body bytes. After over 100,000 executions, it reported 0 crashes and 0 hangs.
The logic is definitely solid. Changing the loop guard to "while (cnt + 2 <= in_len)" guarantees we always have at least 2 bytes before we touch the EID and length. Reading ie_len once and explicitly checking if it exceeds in_len completely stops the memcpy from reading past the end of the allocation.
I have the raw ASan logs, AFL stats, and the C test harnesses saved if needed!.
Tested-by: Navaneeth K <knavaneeth786@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Navaneeth K <knavaneeth786@xxxxxxxxx>
On 23-02-2026 19:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Just like in commit 154828bf9559 ("staging: rtl8723bs: fix out-of-bounds
read in rtw_get_ie() parser"), we don't trust the data in the frame so
we should check the length better before acting on it
Cc: Navaneeth K <knavaneeth786@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxx>
Assisted-by: gkh_clanker_2000
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Navaneeth, any chance you can test this or at least verify my logic is
correct here? I got a "hit" from a tool that the work you did in your
commit also needs to be done here, and I _think_ I got it right but do
not have the hardware to test this with at all. Thanks!
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
index 6cf217e21593..3e2b5e6b07f9 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
@@ -186,20 +186,25 @@ u8 *rtw_get_ie_ex(u8 *in_ie, uint in_len, u8 eid, u8 *oui, u8 oui_len, u8 *ie, u
cnt = 0;
- while (cnt < in_len) {
+ while (cnt + 2 <= in_len) {
+ u8 ie_len = in_ie[cnt + 1];
+
+ if (cnt + 2 + ie_len > in_len)
+ break;
+
if (eid == in_ie[cnt]
- && (!oui || !memcmp(&in_ie[cnt+2], oui, oui_len))) {
+ && (!oui || (ie_len >= oui_len && !memcmp(&in_ie[cnt + 2], oui, oui_len)))) {
target_ie = &in_ie[cnt];
if (ie)
- memcpy(ie, &in_ie[cnt], in_ie[cnt+1]+2);
+ memcpy(ie, &in_ie[cnt], ie_len + 2);
if (ielen)
- *ielen = in_ie[cnt+1]+2;
+ *ielen = ie_len + 2;
break;
}
- cnt += in_ie[cnt+1]+2; /* goto next */
+ cnt += ie_len + 2; /* goto next */
}
return target_ie;