summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMuhammad Bilal <meatuni001@gmail.com>2026-07-28 17:54:55 +0500
committerGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>2026-09-01 12:15:16 +0200
commitff917923f4fb9c83717ba135ee47d7e4c1567bb7 (patch)
treec38fd8fcf58e1937b17fdbc6518b6f8b797fc15a /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
downloadlinux-stable-ff917923f4fb9c83717ba135ee47d7e4c1567bb7.tar.gz
linux-stable-ff917923f4fb9c83717ba135ee47d7e4c1567bb7.zip
staging: rtl8723bs: fix OOB read in rtw_action_frame_parse()grafted
rtw_action_frame_parse() takes a frame_len parameter but never actually checks it before indexing into the frame body: const u8 *frame_body = frame + sizeof(struct ieee80211_hdr_3addr); ... c = frame_body[0]; ... a = frame_body[1]; frame_body already points 24 bytes (sizeof(struct ieee80211_hdr_3addr)) into frame, so reading frame_body[0] and frame_body[1] requires frame_len >= 26. A management action frame shorter than that (e.g. exactly 24 bytes, the minimum a malicious peer can send) causes a 1-2 byte out-of-bounds read. This is reachable from rtw_cfg80211_monitor_if_xmit_entry() and cfg80211_rtw_mgmt_tx() in ioctl_cfg80211.c, both of which pass attacker/user-influenced frame buffers and lengths straight through. Add the missing length check before frame_body is dereferenced. Fixes: 554c0a3abf216 ("staging: Add rtl8723bs sdio wifi driver") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Muhammad Bilal <meatuni001@gmail.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260728125456.32359-3-meatuni001@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst69
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..13ab13984
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
+
+==========
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core
+and nova-drm.
+
+Language
+========
+
+The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules
+of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules
+apply.
+
+- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written
+ in Rust.
+
+- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of
+ technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component
+ providing a safe API for other driver code to use.
+
+Style
+-----
+
+All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply.
+
+For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist
+addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_.
+
+Documentation
+=============
+
+The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability,
+accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general,
+but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting.
+
+Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project.
+
+Besides that, there are some minimum requirements.
+
+- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the
+ semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime
+ requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for
+ non-trivial private structures.
+
+- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the
+ semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner
+ cases.
+
+- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers
+ must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and
+ lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable.
+
+- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely
+ defined.
+
+- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly;
+ unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if
+ the author is able to obtain the corresponding information.
+
+Acceptance Criteria
+===================
+
+- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the
+ mailing list; this also applies for maintainers.