linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/3] [RFC] kernel/glibc mismatch of "readlink" syscall?

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: <200810311637.25371.dgollub@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:37:23 +0100
From:	Daniel Gollub <dgollub@...e.de>
To:	Kai Henningsen <kai.extern@...glemail.com>
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, ltp-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"A.E. Brouwer" <aeb@....tue.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [RFC] kernel/glibc mismatch of "readlink" syscall?

On Friday 31 October 2008 16:02:48 Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Am Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:53:25 -0500
>
> schrieb "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Gollub <dgollub@...e.de>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > EINVAL bufsiz is not positive.
> >
> > The EINVAL error was added to man-pages-1.18 in 1997 (even though, as
> > you note, the type was "size_t").  I suspect (this was well before I
> > had any association with man-pages) that was done to reflect kernel
> > reality (since one could bypass glibc invoke the syscall directly),
> > but obviously it is inconsistent with the prototype.
>
> Actually, it's not inconsistent as described, though perhaps that is
> unintentional. "Not positive" isn't the same as "negative", as zero
> isn't positive either, and zero is certainly a possible value of an
> unsigned type

True.

But there is still the problem for the ltp syscall test "readlink03", when 
using the glibc "readlink" interface, by calling readlink with a buffer size 
of "-1".

Calling "-1" seems to be a valid code/error-path in the linux syscall 
"readlink", since there is a check for less-equal zero.

But the less zero, condition can't be reached via the glibc "readlink" 
interface since this would cause fortify-check to fail (when buliding with -
D_FORITFY_SOURCE=2).

To "workaround" the fortify check, by not compiling the testcase with -
D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, or trying to test the linux readlink interface by calling 
directly syscall() in the testcase ... both suggestion are just workarounds - 
no real solutions.

We could also just remove the testcase of buffer size "-1".

The problem is still, how to test the "readlink" syscall in LTP?

best regards,
Daniel
--
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/