linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] hv: kvp: Avoid reading past allocated blocks from KVP file

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: <20171101064932.GA30717@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:49:32 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Long Li <longli@...hange.microsoft.com>
Cc:     "K . Y . Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Paul Meyer <Paul.Meyer@...rosoft.com>,
        Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hv: kvp: Avoid reading past allocated blocks from KVP
 file

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 01:02:35PM -0700, Long Li wrote:
> From: Paul Meyer <Paul.Meyer@...rosoft.com>
> 
> While reading in more than one block (50) of KVP records, the allocation
> goes per block, but the reads used the total number of allocated records
> (without resetting the pointer/stream). This causes the records buffer to
> overrun when the refresh reads more than one block over the previous
> capacity (e.g. reading more than 100 KVP records whereas the in-memory
> database was empty before).
> 
> Fix this by reading the correct number of KVP records from file each time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Meyer <Paul.Meyer@...rosoft.com>
> Signed-off-by: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> ---
>  tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c | 66 ++++++++----------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

When you version a patch, you always have to say what changed below the
--- line, as the documentation states to do...

v3? :)

thanks,

greg k-h