On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
> arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
> that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
> bounds.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Steven Vittitoe <scvi...@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Bruno Prémont <bonb...@linux-vserver.org>
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c
> index acbb0210..020df3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c
> @@ -350,6 +350,12 @@ static int picolcd_raw_event(struct hid_device *hdev,
> if (!data)
> return 1;
>
> + if (size > 64) {
> + hid_warn(hdev, "invalid size value (%d) for picolcd raw
> event\n",
> + size);
Is it worth adding report->id to this hid_warn()?
A valid device is not expected to ever send >64 bytes reports but in
case a firmware update would do so it would help to know for which
report it was.
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> if (report->id == REPORT_KEY_STATE) {
> if (data->input_keys)
> ret = picolcd_raw_keypad(data, report, raw_data+1,
> size-1);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
