linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2] x86: kvm: x86: fix information leak to userland

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: <20110726172809.GA23970@albatros>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:28:09 +0400
From:	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] x86: kvm: x86: fix information leak to userland

Alexander,

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 19:05 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > @@ -2623,6 +2626,7 @@ static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_debugregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > 	dbgregs->dr6 = vcpu->arch.dr6;
> > 	dbgregs->dr7 = vcpu->arch.dr7;
> > 	dbgregs->flags = 0;
> > +	memset(&dbgregs->reserved, 0, sizeof(dbgregs->reserved));
> > }
> > 
> > static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_set_debugregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > @@ -3106,6 +3110,7 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_get_pit2(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_pit_state2 *ps)
> > 		sizeof(ps->channels));
> > 	ps->flags = kvm->arch.vpit->pit_state.flags;
> > 	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.vpit->pit_state.lock);
> > +	memset(&ps->reserved, 0, sizeof(ps->reserved));
> 
> struct kvm_pit_state2 {
>         struct kvm_pit_channel_state channels[3];
>         __u32 flags;
>         __u32 reserved[9];
> };
> 
> So memset(&ps->reserved) would give you the a __u32 **, no? Same goes for all the other array sets in here. Or am I understanding some C logic wrong? :)

No, the array name and an address of the array give the same address.  I
could use ps->reserved instead of &ps->reserved, but it is a question of
coding style.  I got opposite opinions on this question from different
maintainers.

Another thing is that sizeof() of the array name and the pointer to the
first array element differ.  But I used sizeof(array) here, so it should
be correct.


Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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/