linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] proc/bootconfig: Fix to use correct quotes for value

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: <20200615151139.5cc223fc@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:11:39 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] proc/bootconfig: Fix to use correct quotes for
 value

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:23:18 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> Fix /proc/bootconfig to show the correctly choose the
> double or single quotes according to the value.
> 
> If a bootconfig value includes a double quote character,
> we must use single-quotes to quote that value.
> 
> Fixes: c1a3c36017d4 ("proc: bootconfig: Add /proc/bootconfig to show boot config list")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/proc/bootconfig.c |   13 +++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/bootconfig.c b/fs/proc/bootconfig.c
> index 9955d75c0585..930d1dae33eb 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/bootconfig.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/bootconfig.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static int __init copy_xbc_key_value_list(char *dst, size_t size)
>  {
>  	struct xbc_node *leaf, *vnode;
>  	const char *val;
> +	char q;
>  	char *key, *end = dst + size;
>  	int ret = 0;

Hmm, shouldn't the above have the upside-down xmas tree format?

	struct xbc_node *leaf, *vnode;
	char *key, *end = dst + size;
	const char *val;
	char q;
	int ret = 0;


Looks a little better that way. But anyway, more meat below.

>  
> @@ -41,16 +42,20 @@ static int __init copy_xbc_key_value_list(char *dst, size_t size)
>  			break;
>  		dst += ret;
>  		vnode = xbc_node_get_child(leaf);
> -		if (vnode && xbc_node_is_array(vnode)) {
> +		if (vnode) {
>  			xbc_array_for_each_value(vnode, val) {
> -				ret = snprintf(dst, rest(dst, end), "\"%s\"%s",
> -					val, vnode->next ? ", " : "\n");

The above is a functional change that is not described in the change
log.

You use to have:

	if (vnode && xbc_node_is_array(vnode)) {
		xbc_array_for_each_value() {
			[..]
		}
	} else {
		[..]
	}

And now have:

	if (vnode) {
		xbc_array_for_each_value() {
			[..]
		}
	} else {
		[..]
	}

Is "vnode" equivalent to "vnode && xbc_node_is_array(vnode)" ?

Why was this change made? It seems out of scope with the change log?

-- Steve


> +				if (strchr(val, '"'))
> +					q = '\'';
> +				else
> +					q = '"';
> +				ret = snprintf(dst, rest(dst, end), "%c%s%c%s",
> +					q, val, q, vnode->next ? ", " : "\n");
>  				if (ret < 0)
>  					goto out;
>  				dst += ret;
>  			}
>  		} else {
> -			ret = snprintf(dst, rest(dst, end), "\"%s\"\n", val);
> +			ret = snprintf(dst, rest(dst, end), "\"\"\n");
>  			if (ret < 0)
>  				break;
>  			dst += ret;