[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276462894.2356.6.camel@cndougla-ubuntu>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:01:34 -0400
From: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace-cmd: prevent print_graph_duration buffer overflow
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 16:52 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:48 EDT, Chase Douglas said:
> > Passing n > sizeof(string) to snprintf can cause a glibc buffer overflow
> > condition. We know the exact size of nsecs_str, so use it instead of
> > math that may overflow.
>
> > /* Print nsecs (we don't want to exceed 7 numbers) */
> > if ((s->len - len) < 7) {
> > - snprintf(nsecs_str, 8 - (s->len - len), "%03lu", nsecs_rem);
> > + snprintf(nsecs_str, sizeof(nsecs_str), "%03lu", nsecs_rem);
>
> We only get into this code after we've checked that the length is under 7
> characters. How much overflow can happen as long as the sizeof(nsecs_str) is a
> sane size (like at least 8 chars)? Probably a better bet would be doing the
> right thing and 'BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(nsecs_str) < 8);'?
nsecs_str is a local variable defined just above this block of code as:
char nsecs_str[5];
I was hitting cases where s->len == 64 and len == 63, leading to the
size argument of snprintf being 7 on a 5 byte string. I didn't delve too
much into the reasoning for the if statement, but I think it's math is
not actually related to the size of nsecs_rem but to some other string
length.
-- Chase
--
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