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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:47:40 -0600
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, ohad@...ery.com,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
        psodagud@...eaurora.org, rishabhb@...eaurora.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] remoteproc: coredump: Add minidump functionality

On Thu 29 Oct 18:54 CDT 2020, Siddharth Gupta wrote:

> 
> On 10/26/2020 2:09 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Fri 02 Oct 21:05 CDT 2020, Siddharth Gupta wrote:
[..]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_helpers.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_helpers.h
> > > index 4b6be7b..d83ebca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_helpers.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_elf_helpers.h
> > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > >   #include <linux/elf.h>
> > >   #include <linux/types.h>
> > > +#define MAX_NAME_LENGTH 16
> > This name is too generic. Why is it 16?
> 
> I will update the name to  MAX_SHDR_NAME_LEN. In our usecase we didn't
> expect a length of the section name to exceed
> 16 characters (MAX_REGION_NAME_LENGTH defined in qcom_minidump.h in patch
> 03/04). It might change later if users
> want to increase the size. What would you prefer the max name length for the
> section header to be?
> 

If you calculate the size of the region based on the strings I don't see
why you need to limit it here - and you shouldn't use a bounded version
of strcpy in this case either.

I don't think this part of the code should truncate the strings, if we
need to sanitize the strings make sure to do that when you populate the
list.

Thanks,
Bjorn

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ