mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: zjamg <ndaugoing@gmail.com>
Cc: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>,
	Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@gmail.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] nfc: nci: do not process unexpected or invalid CORE_CONN_CREATE_RSP
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:29:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260921132949.GQ13925@horms.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260918020412.82878-2-ndaugoing@gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 10:04:12AM +0800, zjamg wrote:
> From: Yuchao Zhang <ndaugoing@gmail.com>
> 
> When an NCI_OP_CORE_CONN_CREATE_RSP packet is received,
> nci_core_conn_create_rsp_packet() parses it and creates a logical
> connection entry in ndev->conn_info_list.
> 
> However, nci_core_conn_create_rsp_packet() suffers from several issues:
> 1. It does not verify that a connection creation command is currently
>    pending. An unsolicited or delayed CORE_CONN_CREATE_RSP packet
>    unconditionally creates a rogue connection and calls
>    nci_req_complete(), prematurely completing unrelated in-flight
>    requests.
> 2. It lacks bounds checking against sizeof(struct nci_core_conn_create_rsp)
>    for the packet payload, leading to potential out-of-bounds reads.
> 3. It does not validate rsp->conn_id. Dynamic logical connections
>    assigned by the NFCC must not use NCI_STATIC_RF_CONN_ID (0x00) or
>    collide with any existing connection ID.
> 4. It inserts the new connection at the head of ndev->conn_info_list
>    via list_add(). Because connection lookup (e.g. in nci_tx_work() and
>    nci_data_exchange_complete()) uses first-match semantics, prepending
>    allows a newly created connection with a duplicate ID to shadow the
>    static RF connection or earlier connections.
>    Furthermore, ndev->hci_dev->conn_info is mistakenly updated even
>    when the destination type is not NCI_DESTINATION_NFCEE because
>    cur_params.id and nfcee_id both default to 0.
> 
> Fix this by:
> - Adding an NCI_CONN_CREATE_PENDING flag in enum nci_flag to track
>   in-flight connection creation commands, and rejecting unsolicited or
>   delayed responses.
> - Adding packet length verification before reading payload fields.
> - Rejecting responses that allocate NCI_STATIC_RF_CONN_ID or duplicate
>   existing connection IDs.
> - Appending new connections with list_add_tail() instead of list_add().
> - Restricting ndev->hci_dev->conn_info assignment to NFCEE destination
>   types.
> 
> Fixes: 736bb9577407 ("NFC: nci: Support logical connections management")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Yuchao Zhang <ndaugoing@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/net/nfc/nci_core.h |  1 +
>  net/nfc/nci/core.c         |  2 ++
>  net/nfc/nci/rsp.c          | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/nfc/nci_core.h b/include/net/nfc/nci_core.h
> index 664d5058e66e..a4652ffc173d 100644
> --- a/include/net/nfc/nci_core.h
> +++ b/include/net/nfc/nci_core.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ enum nci_flag {
>  	NCI_DATA_EXCHANGE,
>  	NCI_DATA_EXCHANGE_TO,
>  	NCI_UNREG,
> +	NCI_CONN_CREATE_PENDING,
>  };


Hi,

This patch seems to use a similar mechanism to another patch that
you recently posted

- [PATCH 1/1] nfc: nci: ignore unexpected CORE_RESET_NTF
  https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260918013337.82214-2-ndaugoing@gmail.com/

I forwarded an AI-generated review in response to that patch
and I am concerned that this patch has similar issues centred around:

* Use of a single-bit gate, in this case NCI_CONN_CREATE_PENDING, may
  match against a late-arriving packet for an earlier request
* Concurrency between a work queue handler and other execution paths


As this patch seems related to the one at the link above I would suggest
either concluding one first.  Or provided any updated versions in the form
of a patch-set that includes both patches.  And I would suggest the first
of those options would lead to a faster conclusion.

...

      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-21 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-18  2:04 [PATCH 0/1] " zjamg
2026-09-18  2:04 ` [PATCH 1/1] " zjamg
2026-09-21 13:29   ` Simon Horman [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260921132949.GQ13925@horms.kernel.org \
    --to=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=christophe.ricard@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=david@ixit.cz \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ndaugoing@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®