[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YAa0j9CG/6yrGcs+@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:29:35 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: fix buffer overflow potential for print_text()
On (21/01/19 10:00), John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-01-19, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> > John, how did you spot these problems?
>
> I am preparing my series to remove the logbuf_lock, which also refactors
> and consolidates code from syslog_print_all() and
> kmsg_dump_get_buffer(). While testing/verifying my series, I noticed the
> these oddities in the semantics and decided I should research where they
> came from and if they were actually necessary.
Any chance you can put those tests somewhere public so that we can
run them regularly? (say, before Petr sends out a pull request to
Linus.)
> I wouldn't say the oddities are necessary (in fact, they are quite
> annoying), but we have decided to keep them in out of fear of breaking
> out-of-tree modules and/or interesting userspace code.
Sure.
> One positive effect of the rework is that we are finding these oddities
> and documenting them.
Absolutely agree.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists