linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ras: fix an off-by-one error in __find

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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:07:26 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ras: fix an off-by-one error in __find_elem()

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 06:20:00PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> ce_arr.array[] is always within the range [0, ce_arr.n-1].
> However, the binary search code in __find_elem() uses ce_arr.n
> as the maximum index, which could lead to an off-by-one
> out-of-bound access when the element after the last is exactly
> the one just got deleted, that is, 'min' returned to caller as
> 'ce_arr.n'.

Sorry, I don't follow.

There's a debugfs interface in /sys/kernel/debug/ras/cec/ with which you
can input random PFNs and test the thing.

Show me pls how this can happen with an example.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.