linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] pstore: Fix long-term implicit conversions in the compression routines

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:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 10:47:01 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-dev@...lia.com, kernel@...ccoli.net, anton@...msg.org,
        ccross@...roid.com, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] pstore: Fix long-term implicit conversions in the
 compression routines

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 01:36, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:42:09PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> > The pstore infrastructure is capable of compressing collected logs,
> > relying for that in many compression "libraries" present on kernel.
> > Happens that the (de)compression code in pstore performs many
> > implicit conversions from unsigned int/size_t to int, and vice-versa.
> > Specially in the compress buffer size calculation, we notice that
> > even the libs are not consistent, some of them return int, most of
> > them unsigned int and others rely on preprocessor calculation.
> >
> > Here is an attempt to make it consistent: since we're talking
> > about buffer sizes, let's go with unsigned types, since negative
> > sizes don't make sense.
>
> Thanks for this! I want to go through this more carefully, but I'm a fan
> of the clean-up. I'd also like to get Ard's compression refactor landed
> again, and then do this on top of it.
>

Isn't this the stuff we want to move into the crypto API?