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, 18 May 2023 12:54:27 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Let scsi_execute_cmd() mark args->sshdr as invalid

On 5/18/23 03:57, John Garry wrote:
> I think it's better to fix up the callers.

+1

> Further to that, I dislike 
> how we pass a pointer to this local sshdr structure. I would prefer if 
> scsi_execute_cmd() could kmalloc() the mem for these buffers and the 
> callers could handle free'ing them - I can put together a patch for 
> that, to see what people think.

sizeof(struct scsi_sense_hdr) = 8. Using kmalloc() to allocate an eight 
byte data structure sounds like overkill to me. Additionally, making 
scsi_execute_cmd() allocate struct scsi_sense_hdr and letting the 
callers free that data structure will make it harder to review whether 
or not any memory leaks are triggered. No such review is necessary if 
the scsi_execute_cmd() caller allocates that data structure on the stack.

Bart.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ