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: <202209071613.A08F0F9225@keescook> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:18:40 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@...eup.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] fortify: Fix __compiletime_strlen() under UBSAN_BOUNDS_LOCAL On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:36:46PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:43 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > Co-developed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> > > That's overly generous of you! Well, it was a lot of work to track down, and you wrote it up that way, I just moved things around a little bit. :) > Anyways, the disassembly LGTM and the bot also came back green. > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> > Tested-by: Android Treehugger Robot > Link: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/kernel/common/+/2206839 Thank you! > Another thought, Nikita suggested that you could also compare mode 1 vs mode 3: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57510#issuecomment-1235126343 Yeah, it could work (I tried this as well), but I think the better approach is checking index 0. > That said, since mode 3 returns 0 for "unknown" I'd imagine that > wouldn't be pretty since it wouldn't be a direct comparison against > __p_size. Yeah -- it is a little weird. I might come back to this if we get more glitches like this in the future. -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists