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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 18:59:07 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, stable@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.co.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: avoid utf8_strncasecmp() with unstable name On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:35:47AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:18:14AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:02:16PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > + if (len <= DNAME_INLINE_LEN - 1) { > > > + unsigned int i; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > > > + strbuf[i] = READ_ONCE(str[i]); > > > + strbuf[len] = 0; > > > > This READ_ONCE is going to force the compiler to use byte accesses. > > What's wrong with using a plain memcpy()? > > > > It's undefined behavior when the source can be concurrently modified. > > Compilers can assume that it's not, and remove the memcpy() (instead just using > the source data directly) if they can prove that the destination array is never > modified again before it goes out of scope. > > Do you have any suggestions that don't involve undefined behavior? Even memcpy(strbuf, (volatile void *)str, len)? It's been a while since I've looked at these parts of C99...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists