[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160520.094515.288573467665398547.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: vegard.nossum@...il.com
Cc: jslaby@...e.cz, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kangjielu@...il.com, kjlu@...ech.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 69/76] net: fix infoleak in rtnetlink
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:04:54 +0200
> Just out of curiosity, was this observed in practice? I could be
> wrong, but I was under the impression that using designated
> initializers would zero the rest of the struct, including padding.
I compiled testcases and found that the compiler does not zero out
padding when using designated initializers.
You can do the same.
For example, on sparc 32-bit, this code:
struct foo {
int a;
short b;
int c;
};
extern void foo(struct foo *);
void bar(void)
{
struct foo f = { .a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3 };
foo(&f);
}
gives:
mov 1, %g1
st %g1, [%fp-12]
mov 2, %g1
sth %g1, [%fp-8]
mov 3, %g1
st %g1, [%fp-4]
It does not initialize the padding between 'b' and 'c'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists