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: <1271213041.3008.35.camel@dhcp235-240.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:44:01 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION PATCH] vsprintf: increase sizeof precision in
 printf_spec

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 18:33 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:13 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > Patch ef0658f3de484bf9b173639cd47544584e01efa5 changed the precision field
> > from and int to an s8.  Problem is that we have code which uses a much larger
> > precision in the kernel.  An example would in the audit code where we have:
> > 
> > vsnprintf(...,..., " msg='%.1024s'", (char *)data);
> > 
> > which causes precision to be too large and end up truncating to nothing.
> > Raising the size of the precision fixes the audit system issue.  It also does
> > not affect the alignment of the struct according to pahole and is still
> > approprietely packed.
> 
> I don't see how it could be appropriately packed.

I was just saying there was no padding inside the struct, although you
are right about it now being longer than 64.

> type isn't currently required to be u16.
> It could be u8.
> 
> Perhaps this is better.
> 
> struct printf_spec {
> 	u8 type;
> 	u8 flags;		/* flags to number() */
> 	u8 base;
> 	u8 qualifier;
> 	s16 field_width;	/* width of output field */
> 	s16 precision;		/* # of digits/chars */
> } __attribute__((packed));

If we don't need the size in type I'm happy with this.

But what does __attribute__((packed)) buy us?  I always thought that was
frowned upon because it could put us in a position where if it does
affect the layout it destroys performance on systems where unaligned
access matters.  I don't think it is going to affect the alignment of
this struct, so I don't understand why we should add it.  But maybe I'm
misinformed....

I'll gladly resend with u8 type and s16 precision if that's the best
solution.

-Eric

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ