rtw88: fix use after free in rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req()
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 rtw88: fix use after free in rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req()
This code needs to use skb_queue_walk_safe() instead of skb_queue_walk() because it frees the list iterator.
--- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +2 -2
@@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, {struct cfg80211_scan_request *req = rtwvif->scan_req;struct sk_buff_head list; -struct sk_buff *skb; +struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp;u8 num = req->n_ssids, i, bands =0 ;int ret;
@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,return _rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req (rtwdev, num * bands, &list); out: - skb_queue_walk(&list, skb) + skb_queue_walk_safe(&list, skb, tmp)kfree_skb (skb);return ret;
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Pkshih
maintainerQuoted 23 lines · Dan Carpenter
This code needs to use
skb_queue_walk_safe()instead ofskb_queue_walk()because it frees the list iterator.Fixes d95984b5580d ("rtw88: fix memory overrun and memory leak during hw_scan")Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +1
-1@@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, {struct cfg80211_scan_request *req = rtwvif->scan_req;struct sk_buff_head list; -struct sk_buff *skb; +struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp;u8 num = req->n_ssids, i, bands =0 ;int ret;
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, · line 1895
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +1
-1@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,return _rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req (rtwdev, num * bands, &list); out: - skb_queue_walk(&list, skb) + skb_queue_walk_safe(&list, skb, tmp)kfree_skb (skb);return ret;
Oops, when I reivewed the patch "rtw88: fix memory overrun and memory leak during hw_scan", I did only focus on pointers of list head, but forget skb is freed that leads use after free.
Could I have related fix with this patch?
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +0 -0
@@ -1853,7 +1853,7 @@ static int _rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u8
num_probes,
rtwdev->scan_info.probe_pg_size = page_offset;
out:
kfree(buf);
- skb_queue_walk(probe_req_list, skb)
+ skb_queue_walk_safe(probe_req_list, skb, tmp)
kfree_skb(skb);
return ret;--
Ping-Ke
Quoted 31 lines · Pkshih
Quoted 30 lines · Dan Carpenter
This code needs to use
skb_queue_walk_safe()instead ofskb_queue_walk()because it frees the list iterator.Fixes d95984b5580d ("rtw88: fix memory overrun and memory leak during hw_scan")Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +2
-2@@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, {struct cfg80211_scan_request *req = rtwvif->scan_req;struct sk_buff_head list; -struct sk_buff *skb; +struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp;u8 num = req->n_ssids, i, bands =0 ;int ret;@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,return _rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req (rtwdev, num * bands, &list); out: - skb_queue_walk(&list, skb) + skb_queue_walk_safe(&list, skb, tmp)kfree_skb (skb);
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c static int rtw_hw_scan_update_probe_req(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, · line 1895
Quoted 1 line
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/fw.c +0
-0return ret;Oops, when I reivewed the patch "rtw88: fix memory overrun and memory leak during
hw_scan", I did only focus on pointers of list head, but forget skb is freed that leads use after free.Could I have related fix with this patch?
Yes, thank you for noticing that. For some reason, on my system, Smatch thinks that probe_req_list is always empty and doesn't warn about that one because "it's impossible".
I will send a v2 patch.
regards,
dan carpenter