linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 36/45] NFSv4: Fix GETATTR bitmap verification

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:	Fri, 29 May 2015 00:09:38 +0200
From:	Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 36/45] NFSv4: Fix GETATTR bitmap verification

2015-05-28 23:55 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>:
>> We already do this kind of check with the existing code. What's wrong with it?
>
> Actually, you're right, we don't check for the previous word, however
> fixing that is a question of adding 2 extra checks in
> decode_getfattr_attrs(), one in decode_getfattr_statfs(), and one in
> decode_fsinfo().
>
> It shouldn't require a rewrite of the entire nfs4xdr.c.

I would actually prefer either verifying the reply bitmap against the
request bitmap,
or checking the bitmap first as this patch does --- the current
approach of knocking
individual bits over and checking if any "before" bits have been missed isn't
exactly what I would take as a textbook example.

Thanks,
Andreas
--
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/