linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm/page_owner: Use scnprintf() to avoid excessive buffer overrun check

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:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 13:49:02 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm/page_owner: Use scnprintf() to avoid excessive
 buffer overrun check

On 2/3/22 10:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/2/22 21:30, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The snprintf() function can return a length greater than the given
>> input size. That will require a check for buffer overrun after each
>> invocation of snprintf(). scnprintf(), on the other hand, will never
>> return a greater length. By using scnprintf() in selected places, we
>> can avoid some buffer overrun checks except after stack_depot_snprint()
>> and after the last snprintf().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
> Looks like this will work, but note that if the purpose of patch 1/4 was
> that after the first scnprintf() that overflows the following calls will be
> short-cut thanks to passing the size as 0, AFAICS that won't work. Because
> scnprintf() returns the number without trailing zero, 'ret' will be 'count -
> 1' after the overflow, so 'count - ret' will be 1, never 0.

Yes, I am aware of that. Patch 1 is just a micro-optimization for the 
very rare case.

Cheers,
Longman