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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1915509.OMjZjUUbeY@machine> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:15:08 +0200 From: Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@...vacyrequired.com> To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> Cc: 'Jakub Kicinski' <kuba@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 3/3] Rename nla_strlcpy to nla_strscpy. Le vendredi 23 octobre 2020, 10:07:44 CEST David Laight a écrit : > From: Jakub Kicinski > > > Sent: 23 October 2020 00:06 > > > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:04:32 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > From: Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@...vacyrequired.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Calls to nla_strlcpy are now replaced by calls to nla_strscpy > > > > > > which is the > > > > > > new name of this function. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@...vacyrequired.com> > > > > > > > > > > The Subject could also be: "treewide: Rename nla_strlcpy to > > > > > nla_strscpy" > > > > > > > > > > But otherwise, yup, easy mechanical change. > > > > > > > > Should I submit a v4 for this change? > > > > > > I'll say yes. :) Drop the RFC, bump to v4, and send it to netdev (along > > > with all the other CCs you have here already), and add the Reviewed-bys > > > from v3. > > > > Maybe wait until next week, IIRC this doesn't fix any bugs, so it's > > -next material. We don't apply anything to net-next during the merge > > window. > > Is this just a rename, or have you changed the result value? > In the latter case the subject is really right. I changed the result value so it mimics the return value of strscpy. > FWIW I suspect the 'return -ERR on overflow' is going to bite us. > Code that does p += strsxxx(p, ..., lim - p, ...) assuming (or not > caring) about overflow goes badly wrong. Normally, I updated all parts of the code that check the value returned by nla_strscpy. But, if I understood correctly you are afraid of this type of code: nla_strscpy(p, nla, p_len); p += strncat(p, something, lim - p, ...); Am I correct? > To my mind returning the full buffer length (ie include the '\0') > on overflow still allows overflow be checked but makes writes > outside the buffer very unlikely. Maybe I can keep the original behavior and add a pointer as argument which is used to contain -ERR? > David > > - > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 > 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists