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 17:48:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Tejun Heo <>
Cc:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <>,, Li Zefan <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,,
        Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: check format and overflows in cgroup2 cpu.max

On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 08:11:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.

Always use a field width specifier with %s.  Which is exactly what the
proposed patch did IIRC.

Maybe that's something checkpatch could warn about.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists