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:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:20:23 +0200
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Hangyu Hua <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tls: Fix possible NULL-pointer dereference in
 tls_decrypt_device() and tls_decrypt_sw()

2023-10-25, 07:14:08 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:27:05 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > My bad. I only checked &msg->msg_iter's address in tls_decrypt_sw and found
> > > it was wrong. Do I need to make a new patch to fix the harmless bogus
> > > pointer?  
> > 
> > I don't think that's necessary, but maybe it would avoid people trying
> > to "fix" this code in the future. Jakub, WDYT?
> No strong feelings, but personally I find checks for conditions which
> cannot happen decrease the readability. Maybe a comment is better?

There's already a comment above tls_decrypt_sg that (pretty much) says
out_iov is only used in zero-copy mode.

 *          [...]            The input parameter 'darg->zc' indicates if
 * zero-copy mode needs to be tried or not. With zero-copy mode, either
 * out_iov or out_sg must be non-NULL.

Do we need another just above the call to tls_decrypt_sg?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists