[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87im7zecec.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 17:06:59 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: printk: kmsg_dump_get_line_nolock() buffer overflow
On 2021-01-14, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> It is pitty that I have missed this. I remember that I discussed
> exactly this problem before, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190710080402.ab3f4qfnvez6dhtc@axis.com/
>
> And I did exactly the same mistake. I have missed the two users in
> "arch/powerpc" and "arch/um".
>
> It is clear that this problem happens repeatedly.
Yes, because the semantics are poor and undocumented.
> Now, the change in record_printk_text() behavior affects also other
> callers. For example, syslog_print() fills the buffer completely
> as well now. I could imagine a userspace code that does the same
> mistake and it works just by chance.
No, syslog_print() works fine. There are only 2 users that think they
can blindly add a byte at buffer[len]. Their code looks scary just
seeing it.
> We should restore the original record_printk_text() behavior
> and add the comment explaining why it is done this way.
OK.
> And I would even explicitly add the trailing '\0' as suggested at
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190710121049.rwhk7fknfzn3cfkz@pathway.suse.cz/#t
OK. But then this becomes official semantics so powerpc/um no longer
need to append a terminator.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists