linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec

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: <1286183058.18293.26.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:04:18 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in
 __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax()

Le lundi 04 octobre 2010 à 03:59 -0500, Robin Holt a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:17:49PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > When proc_doulongvec_minmax() is used with an array of longs,
> > and no min/max check requested (.extra1 or .extra2 being NULL), we
> > dereference a NULL pointer for the second element of the array.
> > 
> > Noticed while doing some changes in network stack for the "16TB problem"
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sysctl.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > index f88552c..4fba86d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > @@ -2500,7 +2500,8 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
> >  				break;
> >  			if (neg)
> >  				continue;
> > -			if ((min && val < *min) || (max && val > *max))
> > +			if ((table->extra1 && val < *min) ||
> > +			    (table->extra2 && val > *max))
> 
> How about changing:
>         for (; left && vleft--; i++, min++, max++, first=0) {
> into:
>         for (; left && vleft--; i++, min = min ? min + 1 : NULL, max = max ? max + 1: NULL, first=0) {
> 
> That would make min and max correct and reduce the chances somebody in
> the future overlooks the fact they are currently filled with garbage.

I prefer my solution, because the check is done only in the 'write'
case, while its done also for 'read' in your solution, not counting the
for (;;) is really ugly...




--
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/