linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lustre: check copy_from_iter/copy_to

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:50:34 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Doug Oucharek <doug.s.oucharek@...el.com>,
        Dmitry Eremin <dmitry.eremin@...el.com>,
        Liang Zhen <liang.zhen@...el.com>,
        Nicholas Hanley <nicholasjhanley@...il.com>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lustre: check copy_from_iter/copy_to_iter return code

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:57:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> Thanks for testing it!
> 
> That means we did not copy any data and the kernel continues with
> an uninitialized buffer, right? The problem may be the definition of
> 
> struct kib_immediate_msg {
>         struct lnet_hdr ibim_hdr;        /* portals header */
>         char         ibim_payload[0]; /* piggy-backed payload */
> } WIRE_ATTR;
> 
> The check that Al added will try to ensure that we don't write
> beyond the size of the ibim_payload[] array, which unfortunately
> is defined as a zero-byte array, so I can see why it will now
> fail. However, it's already broken in mainline now, with or without
> my patch.
> 
> Are you able to come up with a fix that avoids the warning in
> 'allmodconfig' and makes the function do something reasonable
> again?

Might make sense to try and use valid C99 for "array of indefinite
size as the last member", i.e.
struct kib_immediate_msg {
         struct lnet_hdr ibim_hdr;        /* portals header */
         char         ibim_payload[]; /* piggy-backed payload */
} WIRE_ATTR;

	Zero-sized array as the last member is gcc hack predating that;
looks like gcc gets confused into deciding that it knows the distance
from the end of object...

	Said that, are we really guaranteed the IBLND_MSG_SIZE bytes
in there?