linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] lib/vsprintf.c: handle invalid format specifiers more robustly

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: <CAGXu5j+N+epDod2T9U+EDVU6YdLKwzZaT20eVWTQO5montCLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:30:06 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] lib/vsprintf.c: handle invalid format specifiers more robustly

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> If we meet any invalid or unsupported format specifier, 'handling' it
> by just printing it as a literal string is not safe: Presumably the
> format string and the arguments passed gcc's type checking, but that
> means something like sprintf(buf, "%n %pd", &intvar, dentry) would end
> up interpreting &intvar as a struct dentry*.
>
> When the offending specifier was %n it used to be at the end of the
> format string, but we can't rely on that always being the case. Also,
> gcc doesn't complain about some more or less exotic qualifiers (or
> 'length modifiers' in posix-speak) such as 'j' or 'q', but being
> unrecognized by the kernel's printf implementation, they'd be
> interpreted as unknown specifiers, and the rest of arguments would be
> interpreted wrongly.
>
> So let's complain about anything we don't understand, not just %n, and
> stop pretending that we'd be able to make sense of the rest of the
> format/arguments. If the offending specifier is in a printk() call we
> unfortunately only get a "BUG: recent printk recursion!", but at least
> direct users of the sprintf family will be caught.

I like it! Thanks :)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/