linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vsprintf.c: remove stack variable ksym from

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B9E4BD7.1000104@grupopie.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:01:43 +0000
From:	Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Andrew <nick@...k-andrew.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf.c: remove stack variable ksym from

Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 09:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> nice.
>>> But the kallsyms_lookup()/sprint_symbol() functions don't take a 
>>> length parameter, so we have to do the worst-case thing (which itself has 
>>> tons of unnecessary padding).
>> Perhaps a new snprint_symbol function with the
>> other kallsyms... functions changed as necessary.
> 
> Perhaps something like this:

Just one minor nit:

[...]
>  
> -	*result = '\0';
> +	if (size)
> +		*result = '\0';

This test seems to be here to handle the "size == 0" case, but

>[...]
> +const char *kallsyms_lookup_n(unsigned long addr,
> +			      unsigned long *symbolsize,
> +			      unsigned long *offset,
> +			      char **modname, char *namebuf, size_t size)
> +{
> +	if (size)
> +		namebuf[size - 1] = 0;
> +	namebuf[0] = 0;

here we seem to write the namebuf[0] even if "size == 0". So maybe both
assignments in this function should be inside the "if (size)" test.

Other than that, the patch looks good:

Reviewed-by: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error."
Weisert
--
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/