linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings from Linus' tree

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: <20180820013319.slygmbleia55evtl@angband.pl>
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 03:33:19 +0200
From:   Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings from Linus' tree

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 04:21:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:13 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) produced these
> > warnings:
> >
> > fs/cifs/cifssmb.c:605:3: warning: 'strncpy' writing 16 bytes into a region of size 1 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
> >    strncpy(pSMB->DialectsArray+count, protocols[i].name, 16);
> >
> > Presumably caused by my update to gcc 8.2.0.
> 
> Yeah. There are some patches to mark some arrays as non-strings to get
> rid of these, but we'll see. Maybe we'll just disable the new gcc
> warning if it causes more pain than it is worth.

Every single use of strncpy() for a C string is either a bug, inefficiency,
or both.  In this particular case the code:

        count = 0;
        for (i = 0; i < CIFS_NUM_PROT; i++) {
                strncpy(pSMB->DialectsArray+count, protocols[i].name, 16);
                count += strlen(protocols[i].name) + 1;
                /* null at end of source and target buffers anyway */
        }

* pointlessly clears 16 bytes in every iteration
* calculates the string's length twice
* there's no protection against buffer overflow anyway

So what is the strncpy() there for, when an unbounded copy would be just as
good?  For other cases, there's a bunch of better functions: strlcpy(),
snprintf(), even strlen()+memcpy(), etc.

Valid uses of strncpy() do exist (such as SCSI structs), but those deal with
fixed-width fields.  Thus, gcc is right for warning for at least some of
misuse of strncpy() for C strings.  The function wasn't designed for them.

(Skipped analysis why strncpy is always a bad choice for C strings.)


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17]
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37]
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]