linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] replace incorrect strscpy use in FORTIFY

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: <CAGXu5j+yRZWTouM9m1gKg3MtxT5tGgjoZOYWeAHZDz8MgjYdng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:51:31 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
        Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@...il.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] replace incorrect strscpy use in FORTIFY_SOURCE

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> wrote:
> Using strscpy was wrong because FORTIFY_SOURCE is passing the maximum
> possible size of the outermost object, but strscpy defines the count
> parameter as the exact buffer size, so this could copy past the end of
> the source. This would still be wrong with the planned usage of
> __builtin_object_size(p, 1) for intra-object overflow checks since it's
> the maximum possible size of the specified object with no guarantee of
> it being that large.
>
> Reuse of the fortified functions like this currently makes the runtime
> error reporting less precise but that can be improved later on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>

Thanks for fixing this! Linus, do you want to take this directly or
have it go via -mm where fortify landed originally?

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

As far as testing goes, was the NFS tree not in -next, or was a test
not running against -next? I'm curious why it took until the NFS tree
landed in Linus's tree for this to get noticed. Fortify was in -next
for a while...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security