linux-kernel - Re: [S390] cio: kernel stack 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, 30 Aug 2006 17:09:12 +0000 (UTC)
From:	daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [S390] cio: kernel stack overflow.

Have you checked that in all cases all fields of the struct have
been overwritten?  For instance, look at this:

Martin Schwidefsky  wrote:
>-	chp->dev = (struct device) {
>-		.parent  = &css[0]->device,
>-		.release = chp_release,
>-	};
>+	chp->dev.parent = &css[0]->device;
>+	chp->dev.release = chp_release;

Doesn't this leave chp->dev.bus still holding whatever old value it
had laying around before?  Unless I'm missing something, it looks to
me like this diff causes a change in the semantics of the code.

Perhaps it would be better to memset() the entire struct (chp->dev, in
this case) to zero, before assigning to individual fields, so there is
no possibility of old remnant data still being left laying around?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/