linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] bpf: fix swapped arguments in calls to check_buffer

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: <bb2914ff-b2ee-6acb-71da-92e26b9887b1@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:45:22 +0100
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] bpf: fix swapped arguments in calls to
 check_buffer_access

On 28/07/2020 11:43, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 7/27/20 11:39 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 7/27/20 10:54 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>
>>> There are a couple of arguments of the boolean flag zero_size_allowed
>>> and the char pointer buf_info when calling to function
>>> check_buffer_access
>>> that are swapped by mistake. Fix these by swapping them to correct
>>> the argument ordering.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Array compared to 0")
>>> Fixes: afbf21dce668 ("bpf: Support readonly/readwrite buffers in
>>> verifier")
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> Thanks for the fix!
>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> 
> Sigh, thanks for the fix Colin, applied! Yonghong, could you follow-up with
> BPF selftest test cases that exercise these paths? Thx

No problem. Thanks to static analysis, it catches a lot of subtle bugs
like this.

Colin