linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "UBIFS: Fix potential integer overflow in allocation"

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: <5400614.4lJzJ1gdXR@blindfold>
Date:   Mon, 02 Jul 2018 23:41:42 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linux mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Silvio Cesare <silvio.cesare@...il.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "UBIFS: Fix potential integer overflow in allocation"

Am Montag, 2. Juli 2018, 20:27:00 CEST schrieb Kees Cook:
> > Let's queue another patch for the next merge window which converts
> > kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array().
> 
> I'd prefer to leave it as-is for 4.18 because it would be the only
> unconverted kmalloc()-with-multiplication in the entire tree. We did
> treewide conversions and a revert would be undoing that here. (The
> scripts that check for this case would run "clean" for 4.18.)
> 
> So, this gets back to the question of the int vs u32: if you just
> didn't revert this patch, then the kmalloc_array() would stand too.
> Easy! :)

I can queue the kmalloc_array() conversion on top of the revert.
But TBH, using kmalloc_array() here is just ridiculous, we allocate
dn->size times 2 where dn->size is at most 4k.

Thanks,
//richard