linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: check logical size for buffer size

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:46:13 +0100
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        GUO Zihua <guozihua@...wei.com>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: check logical size for buffer size

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:39:39 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:35:56PM +0100:
> > Looks good (except of s/rreq/req/ mentioned by Stefano already).
> 
> Thanks for the review (I've taken this as a 'reviewed-by' under the
> assumption of that fix, sorry for being a bit aggressive at collecting
> these -- I'd rather overcredit work being done than the other way around)

Yes, you can add my RB of course!

> I'll send this and the three other commits in my 9p-next branch to Linus
> tomorrow around this time:
> https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next
> 
> 
> > >  		memcpy(&req->rc, &h, sizeof(h));
> > 
> > Is that really OK?
> > 
> > 1. `h` is of type xen_9pfs_header and declared as packed, whereas `rc` is 
of 
> >    type p9_fcall not declared as packed.
> > 
> > 2. Probably a bit dangerous to assume the layout of xen_9pfs_header being 
in
> >    sync with the starting layout of p9_fcall without any compile-time 
> >    assertion?
> 
> I've done this in a follow up that will be sent to Linus later as per
> Stefano's suggestion.

Great, one patch less to send, thanks! :)