linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: Fix get_user() in call sg_scsi

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]

Message-ID: <9c96f82e-000b-88f8-fa37-753ed6723119@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:48:40 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        kirill@...temov.name
Cc:     dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: Fix get_user() in call sg_scsi_ioctl()

On 11/15/22 16:43, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> get_user() expects the pointer to be pointer-to-simple-variable type,
> but sic->data is array of 'unsigned char'. It violates get_user()
> contracts.
> 
> Cast it explicitly to 'unsigned char __user *'. It matches current
> behaviour.
> 
> This is preparation for fixing sparse warnings caused by Linear Address
> Masking patchset.

What's the side-effect if this isn't applied?  Is it worse than sparse
warnings?