On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 05:14:53AM +0800, Shengzhuo Wei wrote:
> fxls8962af_fifo_flush() copies the number of samples the device reports
> in its FIFO status register into an on-stack buffer
> 
> 	u16 buffer[FXLS8962AF_FIFO_LENGTH * 3];
> 
> which is sized for at most FXLS8962AF_FIFO_LENGTH (32) samples. The
> sample count is read from the BUF_STATUS register and only masked to its
> 6 valid bits:
> 
> 	count = reg & FXLS8962AF_BUF_STATUS_BUF_CNT;
> 
> so it can be 0..63, while the buffer holds 32. The only other limit,
> the watermark, is applied on the write path (fxls8962af_set_watermark)
> but not here on the read path. count samples are then transferred into
> buffer[]:
> 
> 	fxls8962af_fifo_transfer(data, buffer, count);
> 
> fxls8962af_fifo_transfer() reads count * 6 bytes through regmap, so a
> malfunctioning, malicious or counterfeit accelerometer (or an attacker
> tampering with the I2C/SPI bus) that reports up to 63 samples writes up
> to 378 bytes into the 192-byte buffer: a stack out-of-bounds write of up
> to 186 bytes that clobbers the stack canary, saved registers and the
> return address.
> 
> Clamp count to FXLS8962AF_FIFO_LENGTH, the number of samples buffer[] is
> sized for, before the transfer, mirroring the watermark clamp already
> done in fxls8962af_set_watermark(). A well-formed flush reports at most
> FXLS8962AF_FIFO_LENGTH samples, so legitimate devices are unaffected.

...

>  	count = reg & FXLS8962AF_BUF_STATUS_BUF_CNT;
> +	count = min_t(u8, count, FXLS8962AF_FIFO_LENGTH);

min_t(u8, ...) is almost always wrong. Please, find a better solution (even if
the current approach is correct).

Hint: first of all, do not use min_t() (mind '_t' part!).

>  	if (!count)
>  		return 0;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko