linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix mmap random address range on x86 (try2)

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]

Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:42:22 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...) 
	<tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...) <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...) <hpa@...or.com>,
	x86@...nel.org (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix mmap random address range on x86 (try2)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:53:03 +0100 Ludwig Nussel wrote:

> On x86 casting the unsigned int result of get_random_int() to long
> may result in a negative value. On x86 the range of mmap_rnd()
> therefore was -255 to 255. The 32bit mode on x86_64 used 0 to 255 as
> intended.
> 
> The bug was introduced by commit 675a081 in January 2008.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/mmap.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> index 1dab519..f927429 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ static unsigned long mmap_rnd(void)
>  	*/
>  	if (current->flags & PF_RANDOMIZE) {
>  		if (mmap_is_ia32())
> -			rnd = (long)get_random_int() % (1<<8);
> +			rnd = get_random_int() % (1<<8);
>  		else
> -			rnd = (long)(get_random_int() % (1<<28));
> +			rnd = get_random_int() % (1<<28);
>  	}
>  	return rnd << PAGE_SHIFT;
>  }
> -- 

Is there a test case for this?
Can it be tested/checked/observed?

thanks,
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/