linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP

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: <20191120140532.GA12695@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:05:32 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP


* Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:16 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > * Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:24 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > How was this maximum string length of '90' derived? In what way will
> > > > > that have to change if someone changes the message?
> > > >
> > > > That was me counting the string length in a dirty patch in a previous
> > > > thread. We probably should say why we decided for a certain length and
> > > > maybe have a define for it.
> > >
> > > Do you think something like this would be better?
> > >
> > > char desc[sizeof(GPFSTR) + 50 + 2*sizeof(unsigned long) + 1] = GPFSTR;
> >
> > I'd much prefer this for, because it's a big honking warning for people
> > to not just assume things but double check the limits.
> 
> Sorry, I can't parse the start of this sentence. I _think_ you're
> saying you want me to make the change to "char desc[sizeof(GPFSTR) +
> 50 + 2*sizeof(unsigned long) + 1]"?

Yeah, correct. There was an extra 'for' in my first sentence:

> > I'd much prefer this, because it's a big honking warning for people
> > to not just assume things but double check the limits.

Thanks,

	Ingo