linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tools/relocs: fix big section header tables

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: <20181129142312.kz2l5gm33yeaglnn@treble>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:23:12 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tools/relocs: fix big section header tables

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:51:33PM +0100, Artem Savkov wrote:
> In case when the number of entries in the section header table is larger
> then or equal to SHN_LORESERVE the size of the table is held in the sh_size
> member of the initial entry in section header table instead of e_shnum.
> Same with the string table index which is located in sh_link instead of
> e_shstrndx.
> 
> This case is easily reproducible with KCFLAGS="-ffunction-sections",
> bzImage build fails with "String table index out of bounds" error.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/tools/relocs.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
> index b629f6992d9f..5275ea0a0d13 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
> @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@
>  #define Elf_Shdr		ElfW(Shdr)
>  #define Elf_Sym			ElfW(Sym)
>  
> -static Elf_Ehdr ehdr;
> +static Elf_Ehdr	ehdr;

I think there's a tab missing here, it doesn't line up with the other
variables.

> +static unsigned long	shnum;
> +static unsigned int	shstrndx;

Otherwise the patch looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>

-- 
Josh