In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[] acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata() rejects SINF packages only when pcc->num_sifr is strictly less than hkey->package.count, then unconditionally writes a trailing sentinel at pcc->sinf[hkey->package.count]. But pcc->sinf[] is allocated with exactly pcc->num_sifr elements (valid indices 0..num_sifr-1), so that write needs num_sifr strictly greater than package.count to stay in bounds -- num_sifr == package.count passes the existing check but still overflows by one element. This is exactly the case probe()'s existing num_sifr++ workaround ("Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is one higher than the SQTY reported value") is written to accommodate: when a DSDT's SINF package count equals SQTY+1, the workaround makes num_sifr equal to package.count, which is precisely the boundary that overflows here. Found via UBSan (array-index-ou...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[] acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata() rejects SINF packages only when pcc->num_sifr is strictly less than hkey->package.count, then unconditionally writes a trailing sentinel at pcc->sinf[hkey->package.count]. But pcc->sinf[] is allocated with exactly pcc->num_sifr elements (valid indices 0..num_sifr-1), so that write needs num_sifr strictly greater than package.count to stay in bounds -- num_sifr == package.count passes the existing check but still overflows by one element. This is exactly the case probe()'s existing num_sifr++ workaround ("Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is one higher than the SQTY reported value") is written to accommodate: when a DSDT's SINF package count equals SQTY+1, the workaround makes num_sifr equal to package.count, which is precisely the boundary that overflows here. Found via UBSan (array-index-ou...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[] acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata() rejects SINF packages only when pcc->num_sifr is strictly less than hkey->package.count, then unconditionally writes a trailing sentinel at pcc->sinf[hkey->package.count]. But pcc->sinf[] is allocated with exactly pcc->num_sifr elements (valid indices 0..num_sifr-1), so that write needs num_sifr strictly greater than package.count to stay in bounds -- num_sifr == package.count passes the existing check but still overflows by one element. This is exactly the case probe()'s existing num_sifr++ workaround ("Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is one higher than the SQTY reported value") is written to accommodate: when a DSDT's SINF package count equals SQTY+1, the workaround makes num_sifr equal to package.count, which is precisely the boundary that overflows here. Found via UBSan (array-index-ou

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: p ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/x86: panasonic-laptop: Fix sentinel write past pcc->sinf[] acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata() rejects SINF packages only when pcc->num_sifr is strictly less than hkey->package.count, then unconditionally writes a trailing sentinel at pcc->sinf[hkey->package.count]. But pcc->sinf[] is allocated with exactly pcc->num_sifr elements (valid indices 0..num_sifr-1), so that write needs num_sifr strictly greater than package.count to stay in bounds -- num_sifr == package.count passes the existing check but still overflows by one element. This is exactly the case probe()'s existing num_sifr++ workaround ("Some DSDT-s have an off-by-one bug where the SINF package count is one higher than the SQTY reported value") is written to accommodate: when a DSDT's SINF package count equals SQTY+1, the workaround makes num_sifr equal to package.count, which is precisely the boundary that overflows here. Found via UBSan (array-index...