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]

Message-ID: <18d709710608301120i3b2b67fkecf455d842d3336d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:20:15 -0300
From:	"Julio Auto" <mindvortex@...il.com>
To:	"David Wagner" <daw-usenet@...erner.cs.berkeley.edu>,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [S390] cio: kernel stack overflow.

On 8/30/06, Julio Auto <mindvortex@...il.com> wrote:
> Unless, of course, the structure in question is kcalloc()'d (which is
> not the case of gdev in the beginning of the patch - I haven't had the
> time to check the other cases).

Sorry, actually gdev is kzalloc()'d (which works exactly kcalloc()
without the check for n*size integer overflows). I was looking at a
much older version of the code.

I still think, however, that memset()'ing to zero is still something
to consider, in the cases where the structure is passed to the routine
(as opposed to when it's _created by_ the routine). The code shouldn't
rely on the awareness of future developers when adding other calls to
these functions.
-
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/