linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put

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]

Message-ID: <20191008153831.GA2881123@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:38:31 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to
 unsafe_put_user()

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:29:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:14:16PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:57:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > 
> > > 	OK...  BTW, do you agree that the use of access_ok() in
> > > drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:n_hdlc_tty_read() is wrong?  It's used as an early
> > > cutoff, so we don't bother waiting if user has passed an obviously bogus
> > > address.  copy_to_user() is used for actual copying there...
> > 
> > Yes, it's wrong, and not needed.  I'll go rip it out unless you want to?
> 
> I'll throw it into misc queue for now; it has no prereqs and nothing is going
> to depend upon it.

Great, thanks.

> While looking for more of the same pattern: usb_device_read().  Frankly,
> usb_device_dump() calling conventions look ugly - it smells like it
> would be much happier as seq_file.  Iterator would take some massage,
> but that seems to be doable.  Anyway, that's a separate story...

That's just a debugfs file, and yes, it should be moved to seq_file.  I
think I tried it a long time ago, but given it's just a debugging thing,
I gave up as it wasn't worth it.

But yes, the access_ok() there also seems odd, and should be dropped.

thanks,

greg k-h