linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove()

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

Message-ID: <20160428174515.GA9206@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:45:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove()


* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:47 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
> <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > O> For example, this is what I've got currently:
> >>
> >> /* Detect and warn about potential overlaps. */
> >> void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
> >> {
> >>         if (dest > src && dest - src < n)
> >>                 warn("Potentially unsafe overlapping memcpy detected!");
> >>         return __memcpy(dest, src, n);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Does that seem okay? If so, I'll send the patch...
> >
> > Probably useful for debug, but instead of relying on __memcpy
> > happening to handle overlaps - which isn't portable you could instead
> > debug all platforms by doing
> >
> >         if (...) {
> >                 warn(...)
> >                 memmove()
> >         } else
> >                 __memcpy
> >
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of where we started (but without the warning). I
> prefer this, since we don't run the risk of MAYBE breaking. We warn,
> but we remain safe.

Works for me!

Thanks,

	Ingo