linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage

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:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:25:26 -0700
From:   Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
To:     Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 2:19 PM Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Within this RFC-series I want to get some comments on two ideas that I
> have for refactoring the current `strncpy` usage in repository.c.
>
> When looking at `make_first_field` we see a u64 is being used to store
> up to 8 bytes from a literal string. This is slightly suspect to me but
> it works? In regards to `strncpy` here, it makes the code needlessly
> complex imo.
>
> Please see my two ideas to change this and let me know if any other
> approaches are more reasonable.
>
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90
> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
> ---
> Justin Stitt (3):
>       [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 1
>       [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 2
>       [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 2.5
Errhm, It looks like the diffs after attempt 1 came out poorly and
probably won't apply cleanly because they were inter-diffed with the
first patch. Is there a way to let b4 know I wanted each patch diff'd
against the same SHA and not each other sequentially?

As it stands only attempt 1 is readable.

>
>  arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/repository.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 52a93d39b17dc7eb98b6aa3edb93943248e03b2f
> change-id: 20230811-strncpy-arch-powerpc-platforms-ps3-57a1cdb2ad9b
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
>