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  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]
Date:   Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:11:54 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: check format and overflows in cgroup2 cpu.max

Hello, Konstantin.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:03:24PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >Ditto as the blkio patch.  Unless there is a correctness problem, my
> >preference is towards keeping the parsing functions simple and I don't
> >think the kernel needs to play the role of strict input verifier here
> >as long as the only foot getting shot is the user's own.
> 
> IMHO non-strict interface more likely hides bugs and could cause
> problems for future changes.
> 
> Here is only only one fatal bug - buffer overflow in sscanf because
> %s has no limit.

Ah, indeed.  Can you please post a patch to fix that problem first?

> Strict validation could be done as more strict sscanf variant or
> some kind of extension for format string.

I don't necessarily disagree with you; however, what often ends up
with these manually crafted parsing approach are 1. code which is
unnecessarily difficult to follow 2. different subset of validations
and parsing bugs (of course) everywhere.

Given the above, I tend to lean towards dump sscanf() parsing.  If we
wanna improve the situation, I think the right thing to do is either
improving sscanf or introducing new helpers to parse these things
rather than hand-crafting each site.  It is really error-prone.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists