linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise

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: <57B4C051.7030200@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:51:45 +0200
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, socketpair@...il.com,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise

On 08/17/2016 09:41 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> So, would that mean something like the following (where I've moved
>>> some checks from pipe_fcntl() to pipe_set_size()):
>> [...]
>
> And, do you agree that something similar is required for alloc_pipe_info()
> when creating a pipe?

Yeah, that sounds correct to me.


Vegard