linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown pointer specifiers

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: <1523059179.6127.45.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 06 Apr 2018 16:59:39 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown
 pointer specifiers

On Sat, 2018-04-07 at 08:52 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/05/18 16:55), Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:45 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:25 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > > Even just git grep -1 -E '%p"$' finds %pt and %po
> > > > which should get fixed before somebody claims those extensions.
> > > 
> > > Neither %pt nor %po is used in a vsprintf
> > > in the kernel.
> > 
> > Nope, you are right, both are defectively used in the
> > kernel via string concatenation.
> > 
> > Also there's a missing space in a concatenation adjacent.
> 
> Can we tweak checkpatch to catch such things?

Not really, no.

Adding regex logic for this is tricky at best
and probably not worth the effort because of
the various bits of patch contexts aren't
necessarily visible.

There are also concatenations like
	"foo" DEFINE "bar"
where DEFINE may not be visible in the patch
context and checkpatch is and likely will
remain just a limited regex checker.