[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101124110535.GD5139@cr0.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:05:35 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, wharms@....de,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: select: fix information leak to userspace
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>On 23/11/10 18:02, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On 2010-11-23, at 07:45, walter harms wrote:
>>> Maybe we can convince the gcc people to make 0 padding default. That will not solve the problems for other compilers but when they claim "works like gcc" we can press then to support this also. I can imagine that this will close some other subtle leaks also.
>>
>> It makes the most sense to tackle this at the GCC level, since the added overhead of doing memset(0) on the whole struct may be non-trivial for commonly-used and/or large structures. Since GCC is already explicitly zeroing the _used_ fields in the struct, it can much more easily determine whether there is padding in the structure, and zero those few bytes as needed.
>
>Zero padding structs is part of C90. Details here:
>http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/gcc/auto_init.html
Nope.
>
>gcc doesn't zero pad when _all_ elements are specified.
>
That is what gcc does, not what C standard specifies.
--
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