[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7630b0bc-4389-6283-d8b9-c532df916d60@csgroup.eu>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:42:18 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 61/63] powerpc: Split memset() to avoid multi-field
overflow
Le 18/08/2021 à 08:05, Kees Cook a écrit :
> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> neighboring fields.
>
> Instead of writing across a field boundary with memset(), move the call
> to just the array, and an explicit zeroing of the prior field.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> Cc: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>
> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> Cc: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Cc: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87czqsnmw9.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au
> ---
> drivers/macintosh/smu.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/macintosh/smu.c b/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> index 94fb63a7b357..59ce431da7ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> +++ b/drivers/macintosh/smu.c
> @@ -848,7 +848,8 @@ int smu_queue_i2c(struct smu_i2c_cmd *cmd)
> cmd->read = cmd->info.devaddr & 0x01;
> switch(cmd->info.type) {
> case SMU_I2C_TRANSFER_SIMPLE:
> - memset(&cmd->info.sublen, 0, 4);
> + cmd->info.sublen = 0;
> + memset(&cmd->info.subaddr, 0, 3);
subaddr[] is a table, should the & be avoided ?
And while at it, why not use sizeof(subaddr) instead of 3 ?
> break;
> case SMU_I2C_TRANSFER_COMBINED:
> cmd->info.devaddr &= 0xfe;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists