linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Input: introduce ABS

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, 18 Dec 2013 16:34:25 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...-t.net>
Cc:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>,
	Antonio Ospite <ospite@...denti.unina.it>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, input-tools@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Input: introduce ABS_MAX2/CNT2 and friends

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:25:42AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:05:37PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:55:04AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:48:37PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 19, 2013 09:40:09 AM Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > > > > +     memset(&abs, 0, sizeof(abs));
> > > > > > +     for (i = valid_cnt; i < cnt; ++i)
> > > > > > +             if (copy_to_user(&pinfo->info[i], &abs, sizeof(abs)))
> > > > > > +                     return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > > why don't you return the number of valid copied axes to the user?
> > > > > that seems better even than forcing the remainder to 0.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, if your program messed up buffers that it faulted we do not know
> > > > for sure if data that did not cause fault ended up where it should have
> > > > or if it smashed something else. This condition I think should be
> > > > signaled early.
> > > 
> > > not 100% sure I understand but I wasn't proposing to remove the -EFAULT, i
> > > was proposing to replace "return 0" with "return valid_cnt".
> > 
> > I understand what you were saying. Now consider: your program supplied
> > buffer that is actually smaller than what it said to the kernel.
> > Depending on the exact placement we may or may not fault when we get
> > pass the buffer boundary, most likely not. We are likely to fault when
> > we go way past the buffer boundary and wracked process' memory. If we
> > return -EFAULT the program will at least notice that something wrong. If
> > we return count it will try to resubmit the remainder of operation and
> > not even know that there was something very bad happening.
> > 
> > IOW we should not treat fault condition as other partial read/write
> > conditions.
> 
> I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing :)

Hmm, it appears you are right ;)

> let me rephrase: why can't we use the behaviour bits_to_user() provides?
> it limits the output to maxlen and returns that value (or -EFAULT), it's
> only a small step from that to limit the output to min(maxbit, ABS_CNT2).

OK, makes sense.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/