linux-kernel - Re: BUG: KASAN: global-out-of-bounds in ata_exec_internal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=r3xh+yxCgFqQObwi=sMb9oqG0UcTvNJQ4KWKvN82g8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:45:25 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Jeffrin Thalakkottoor <jeffrin@...agiritech.edu.in>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        tobin@...nel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: KASAN: global-out-of-bounds in ata_exec_internal_sg+0x50f/0xc70

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:28:29 -0700
> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > The cited code looks like a check comparing that the pointer distance
> > is greater than the size of bytes being passed in.  I'd wager
> > someone's calling memmove with overlapping memory regions when they
> > really wanted memcpy.  Maybe a better question, is why was memmove
> > ever used; if there was some invariant that the memory regions
> > overlapped, why is that invariant no longer holding.
>
> I'm confused by the above statement as memmove() allows overlapping of
> src and dest, where as memcpy() does not.

Yes you're right; I confused the two.  From the snippet in the
original email, it looks like the body of a fortified memcpy was
provided, and a memmove declaration was below it.  So replace my
assumption of a bad call to memmove with a bad call to memcpy (which
should then make more sense, hopefully).
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers