linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:58:34 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        "Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
        Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        Noa Osherovich <noaos@...lanox.com>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>> --- a/include/rdma/ib_addr.h
>>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_addr.h
>>> @@ -172,7 +172,8 @@ static inline int rdma_ip2gid(struct sockaddr *addr, union ib_gid *gid)
>>>                                        (struct in6_addr *)gid);
>>>                 break;
>>>         case AF_INET6:
>>> -               memcpy(gid->raw, &((struct sockaddr_in6 *)addr)->sin6_addr, 16);
>>> +               *(struct in6_addr *)&gid->raw =
>>> +                       ((struct sockaddr_in6 *)addr)->sin6_addr;

This seems reasonable.

>>>                 break;
>>>         default:
>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>> what happens if you replace 16 with sizeof(struct in6_addr)?
>
> Same thing: the problem is that gcc already knows the size of the structure we
> pass in here, and it is in fact shorter.

So gcc is ignoring both the cast (to 16 byte struct in6_addr) and the
caller's actual 128 byte struct sockaddr_storage, and looking only at
struct sockaddr? That seems really weird.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security