linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86-64, copy_user: Remove zero byte check before copy user buffer.

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5288677D.3040809@zytor.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:51:41 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86-64, copy_user: Remove zero byte check before
 copy user buffer.

On 11/16/2013 10:44 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this doesn't do the 32-bit truncation in the error path of the generic
> string copy. Oversight?
> 
>        Linus

Indeed... although in the kernel it seems to be taken as an invariant
that copy lengths over 4G is simply prohibited.  There are places all
over the kernel which will fail in a massive way if we ever ended up
with a copy over 4G in size.

As such, I would argue the code with the patch is actually no more
broken than with the truncation in place; if anything it is *more*
correct than the modified one, since for a (very small) subset of >=4G
copies it will actually do the right thing, albeit slowly.

The truncations do make me twitch a little inside, I have to admit.

	-hpa

--
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/