diff options
| author | Muhammad Bilal <meatuni001@gmail.com> | 2026-07-28 17:54:55 +0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2026-09-01 12:15:16 +0200 |
| commit | ff917923f4fb9c83717ba135ee47d7e4c1567bb7 (patch) | |
| tree | c38fd8fcf58e1937b17fdbc6518b6f8b797fc15a /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | |
| download | linux-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.rst | 69 |
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. |
