summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorRafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>2017-01-04 12:09:41 +0100
committerKalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>2017-01-17 13:56:35 +0200
commit77c0d0cd10e793989d1e8b835a9a09694182cb39 (patch)
tree185e6832afaa053e5bab14533a9adbdfadac728d /drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac
parent0e8edb9aed03892844713bb76a8e1d2d138f3175 (diff)
brcmfmac: avoid writing channel out of allocated array
Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. This never happened so far (we got a complete list of supported channels) but it means possible memory corruption so we should handle it anyway. This patch simply detects unexpected channel and ignores it. As we don't try to create new entry now, it's also safe to drop hw_value and center_freq assignment. For known channels we have these set anyway. I decided to fix this issue by assigning NULL or a target channel to the channel variable. This was one of possible ways, I prefefred this one as it also avoids using channel[index] over and over. Fixes: 58de92d2f95e ("brcmfmac: use static superset of channels for wiphy bands") Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac')
-rw-r--r--drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c32
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 15 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
index 15eaf722b54b..895404cccbae 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
@@ -5825,7 +5825,6 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
u32 i, j;
u32 total;
u32 chaninfo;
- u32 index;
pbuf = kzalloc(BRCMF_DCMD_MEDLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -5873,33 +5872,36 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80)
continue;
- channel = band->channels;
- index = band->n_channels;
+ channel = NULL;
for (j = 0; j < band->n_channels; j++) {
- if (channel[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
- index = j;
+ if (band->channels[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
+ channel = &band->channels[j];
break;
}
}
- channel[index].center_freq =
- ieee80211_channel_to_frequency(ch.control_ch_num,
- band->band);
- channel[index].hw_value = ch.control_ch_num;
+ if (!channel) {
+ /* It seems firmware supports some channel we never
+ * considered. Something new in IEEE standard?
+ */
+ brcmf_err("Ignoring unexpected firmware channel %d\n",
+ ch.control_ch_num);
+ continue;
+ }
/* assuming the chanspecs order is HT20,
* HT40 upper, HT40 lower, and VHT80.
*/
if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80) {
- channel[index].flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
+ channel->flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
} else if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_40) {
- brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(&channel[index], &ch);
+ brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(channel, &ch);
} else {
/* enable the channel and disable other bandwidths
* for now as mentioned order assure they are enabled
* for subsequent chanspecs.
*/
- channel[index].flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
- IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
+ channel->flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
ch.bw = BRCMU_CHAN_BW_20;
cfg->d11inf.encchspec(&ch);
chaninfo = ch.chspec;
@@ -5907,11 +5909,11 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
&chaninfo);
if (!err) {
if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_RADAR)
- channel[index].flags |=
+ channel->flags |=
(IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR |
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR);
if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_PASSIVE)
- channel[index].flags |=
+ channel->flags |=
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR;
}
}