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>

1 files changed, 72 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ecc3ed638
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+======================================
+Devicetree and Open Firmware Subsystem
+======================================
+
+Other Process Documents
+-----------------------
+
+Please see the documents in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ for information
+on how to write proper Devicetree bindings and how to submit patches.
+
+Patch Review and Handling
+-------------------------
+
+Patches handled by Devicetree maintainers are processed differently depending
+on the patch type:
+
+1. Core OF driver code, e.g. drivers/of/:
+   patches are reviewed and applied by DT maintainers.
+
+2. Devicetree bindings:
+   patches are reviewed by DT maintainers, but should be applied by subsystem
+   maintainers except in certain cases.  See also *For kernel maintainers* in
+   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst.
+
+3. DTS and drivers:
+   DT maintainers might provide comments, but review is generally not expected.
+   DTS must pass schema checks (dtbs_check) or at least do not add any
+   new warnings.
+
+Patchwork
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+Devicetree maintainers review patches using Patchwork, so the current status of
+a patch can be checked there. For typical driver submissions, Patchwork
+receives the entire patch set, but only a few patches are usually Devicetree
+bindings that are reviewed by DT maintainers.
+
+Explanation of Patchwork statuses:
+
+ - **New**: Not yet processed by the automation toolset.
+ - **Needs ACK**: Waiting for review by DT maintainers.
+ - **Handled Elsewhere**: Non-DT patch; not being reviewed here.
+ - **RFC**: Patch was likely ignored because it was an incomplete RFC.
+ - **Changes Requested**: Patch was reviewed and DT maintainers expect changes.
+ - **Accepted**: Patch was reviewed and applied by DT maintainers to their tree.
+ - **Not Applicable**: Patch was reviewed and is likely in good shape, with a
+   *Reviewed-by* or *Acked-by* tag provided, but DT maintainers expect someone
+   else to apply it.
+
+Patch Re-review and Pinging
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Due to the high volume of email traffic, Devicetree maintainers do not read
+every email they receive and instead rely on Patchwork during the review
+process. They also often skip patches that have already been reviewed.
+
+As a result, maintainers might miss:
+
+1. Questions about already reviewed patches.
+2. Pings, for example when a patch has been reviewed by DT maintainers but has
+   not been picked up by subsystem maintainers.
+
+Such cases can be addressed by:
+
+1. Pinging DT maintainers on the IRC channel.
+2. Dropping the DT maintainer’s *Acked-by* or *Reviewed-by* tag when sending a new
+   version of the patch set, together with an explanation in the patch
+   changelog describing why the tag was removed and what is expected from DT
+   maintainers.
+