linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream

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: <20160824140316.GB14309@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:03:16 -0400
From:   lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        ben@...adent.org.uk, luis.henriques@...onical.com,
        avijitnsec@...eaurora.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:25:45PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Sadly, sizeof is what we use when copying that sucker to userland.  So these
> padding bits in the end would've leaked, true enough, and the case is somewhat
> weaker.  And any normal architecture will have those, but then any such
> architecture will have no more trouble zeroing a 32bit value than 16bit one.

Hmm, good point.  Too bad I don't see a compiler option of "zero all
padding in structs".  Certainly generating the code should not really
be that different.

I see someone did request it 2 years ago:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63479

-- 
Len Sorensen