linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2 61/63] powerpc: Split memset() to avoid multi-field overflow

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:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:42:18 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 61/63] powerpc: Split memset() to avoid multi-field
 overflow



Le 18/08/2021 à 08:05, Kees Cook a écrit :
> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> neighboring fields.
> 
> Instead of writing across a field boundary with memset(), move the call
> to just the array, and an explicit zeroing of the prior field.
> 
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> Cc: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>
> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> Cc: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Cc: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87czqsnmw9.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au
> ---
>   drivers/macintosh/smu.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/macintosh/smu.c b/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> index 94fb63a7b357..59ce431da7ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> +++ b/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> @@ -848,7 +848,8 @@ int smu_queue_i2c(struct smu_i2c_cmd *cmd)
>   	cmd->read = cmd->info.devaddr & 0x01;
>   	switch(cmd->info.type) {
>   	case SMU_I2C_TRANSFER_SIMPLE:
> -		memset(&cmd->info.sublen, 0, 4);
> +		cmd->info.sublen = 0;
> +		memset(&cmd->info.subaddr, 0, 3);

subaddr[] is a table, should the & be avoided ?
And while at it, why not use sizeof(subaddr) instead of 3 ?


>   		break;
>   	case SMU_I2C_TRANSFER_COMBINED:
>   		cmd->info.devaddr &= 0xfe;
>