linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Fix panic caused by passing log_buf

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: <20180925121604.GC523@tigerII.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:16:04 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:     He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Fix panic caused by passing log_buf_len
 to command line

On (09/22/18 23:36), He Zhe wrote:
> I'd like to fix the above issues. But can I have your opinions about how to
> handle the syscall?

Hmm. This part is complex, I need to look at it more.
A signed int is a good buffer size limit for 32-bit user space.
But this also means that syslog might experience some problems
doing SYSLOG_ACTION_READ_ALL on a 32-bit system with a 4G log_buf.
Not to mention SYSLOG_ACTION_READ_ALL on a 64-bit system with a
log_buf=32G. So *maybe* things are alredy a bit broken in this
department. Dunno, need to think more.

	-ss