linux-kernel - Re: VLAs and security

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: <CA+55aFy=T6TmG_VcLvSTb02RyKTacxVCxwUALRn8_7cdoic0pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:28:59 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Uecker, Martin" <Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VLAs and security

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM Uecker, Martin
<Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>
> But if the true bound is smaller, then IMHO it is really bad advise
> to tell programmers to use
>
> char buf[MAX_SIZE]
>
> instead of something like
>
> assert(N <= MAX_SIZE);
> char buf[N]

No.

First off, we don't use asserts in the kernel. Not acceptable. You
handle errors, you don't crash.

Secondly, the compiler is usually very stupid, and will generate
horrible code for VLA's.

Third, there's no guarantee that the compiler will actually even
realize that the size is limited, and guarantee that it won't screw up
the stack.

So no. VLA's are not acceptable in the kernel. Don't do them. We're
getting rid of them.

               Linus