linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/5] lib/vdso/32: Remove inconsistent NULL pointer checks

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907281640380.1791@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:42:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] lib/vdso/32: Remove inconsistent NULL pointer
 checks

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:20 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > The 32bit variants of vdso_clock_gettime()/getres() have a NULL pointer
> > check for the timespec pointer. That's inconsistent vs. 64bit.
> >
> > But the vdso implementation will never be consistent versus the syscall
> > because the only case which it can handle is NULL. Any other invalid
> > pointer will cause a segfault. So special casing NULL is not really useful.
> >
> > Remove it along with the superflouos syscall fallback invocation as that
> > will return -EFAULT anyway. That also gets rid of the dubious typecast
> > which only works because the pointer is NULL.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> 
> FWIW, the equivalent change to gettimeofday would be an ABI break,
> since we historically have that check, and it even makes sense there.

Of course, because either of the two pointers can be NULL.

Thanks,

	tglx