linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Add boundary check on ioctl arguments

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: <b5ddba180909300833g2b1fd22ak3e094e10fe10e8a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:33:01 +0200
From:	Hannes Eder <heder@...gle.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Add boundary check on ioctl arguments

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:18, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:38:12 +0200
> Hannes Eder <heder@...gle.com> wrote:
>>  > @@ -2353,17 +2357,25 @@ do_ip_vs_get_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd,
>>  > void __user
>> *user, int *len)
>>  >  {
>>  >    unsigned char arg[128];
>>
>> can MAX_ARG_LEN be used here?
>
> I am not convinced... it is a different numerical value,
> so it could be an ABI change. Rather not do that in this
> type of patch...

For do_ip_vs_set_ctl MAX_ARG_LEN is used:

static int
do_ip_vs_set_ctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
{
	int ret;
	unsigned char arg[MAX_ARG_LEN];
...

I assume that will be fine for do_ip_vs_get_ctl as well.

-Hannes
--
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/