[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AFCC06B.1030302@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:11:55 -0800
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
CC: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] security/selinux: decrement sizeof size in strncmp
James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>
>> I strongly suggest that this is not what is wanted.
>> strcmp(x,y)
>> and
>> strncmp(x,y,sizeof(y))
>>
>> are functionally equivalent and strcmp has a bad reputation in
>> the security community because it is associated with potential
>> buffer overrun issues.
>>
>
> Do you see potential for a buffer overrun in this case?
>
No, but I hate arguing with people who think that every time
they see strcmp that they have found a security flaw. The
existing code does exactly what it is intended to. Why make
a change that just clutters things up?
> The strings being compared are "sysfs" and the name field of 'struct
> file_system_type'. The kernel code elsewhere assumes the latter string to
> be a valid zero-terminated string, and we should, too.
>
>
> - James
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists