linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:48:56 +0206
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation

On 2020-09-30, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I see hardcoded limit more like a hack. It limits something
> somewhere so that some other code somewhere else is safe to use.
>
> And printk.c is really bad from this point. It sometimes does not
> check for overflow because it "knows" that the buffers are big
> enough. But it is error prone code, especially when there are more
> limits defined (pure text, prefix, extended prefix). And it
> will be worse if we allow to add more optional information
> into the prefix.

So should I post a v3 where the checks are added? Or should I add
comments where checks would be, explaining why the checks are not
needed?

John Ogness