linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] fs/binfmts: Improve handling of loops

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:	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:30:44 -0700
From:	Zach Levis <zml@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
	Zach Levis <zach@...hsthings.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] fs/binfmts: Improve handling of loops

On 08/06/2013 02:11 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi Zach,
>
> I like the idea behind these clean ups. Thanks for working on them!
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 04:21:40PM -0700, Zach Levis wrote:
>> This v3 is based off Oleg's changes from "exec: more cleanups" and
>> "exec: minor cleanups + minor fix"
>
> I would echo all of Oleg's comments on the series so far. Additionally,
working on that. v4 will take a little longer since I'm working on some 
more significant changes to make sure I reset all of the possible data 
in the linux_binprm struct and reuse the code from do_execve_common for 
that as much as possible.

> please use "scripts/checkpatch.pl" for checking your patches for common
> errors (see item 4 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I see a number
> of problems that are detected by the tool:
>
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #52: FILE: fs/exec.c:1403:
> +               if (retval == -ELOOP && bprm->recursion_depth == 0) { /* cur, previous */
>
> ...
>
> ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line
> #269: FILE: fs/binfmt_em86.c:70:
> +               if (retval < 0) return retval;
>
> ...
>
> ERROR: "(foo*)" should be "(foo *)"
> #341: FILE: fs/binfmt_flat.c:791:
> +       memset((void*)(datapos + data_len), 0, bss_len +
>
> etc.
>
will do
> After that, be sure to use "scripts/get_maintainer.pl" for generating
> your CC list (see item 5 in SubmittingPatches; I initially missed this
> series -- adding more CCs for people that have touched the code can help
> with your reviews).
Sorry about that. Will do in the future

>
> Also, you only need to include a single Signed-off-by line for
> yourself. :)
Well, then it seems I'll be sending the next rev from my personal email, 
seeing as I've only got a week and a half left on my internship here 
(and until I lose access to my IBM email).
>
>> It incorporates Oleg and Andrew's suggestions and takes care
>> of the issue from Dan's patch "fs/binfmts: double unlock in
>> search_binary_handler()"
>
> In the commit message, can you include some examples of how to generate
> the loops you're encountering? This helps people understand why you're
> doing what you're doing and provides a way for people to reproduce the
> conditions themselves.
Commit 2/3 has a link to a gist with testcases for the scripts -- I 
stuck them in a gist so they didn't clog up the commit message. If 
there's a way you'd prefer me to reference them let me know.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -Kees
>

--
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/