linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT

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: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:56:52 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Elizabeth Figura" <zfigura@...eweavers.com>,
 "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Cc: wine-devel@...ehq.org,
 André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
 "Wolfram Sang" <wsa@...nel.org>, "Arkadiusz Hiler" <ahiler@...eweavers.com>,
 "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote:

> +	if (args->timeout) {
> +		struct timespec64 to;
> +
> +		if (get_timespec64(&to, u64_to_user_ptr(args->timeout)))
> +			return -EFAULT;
> +		if (!timespec64_valid(&to))
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		timeout = timespec64_to_ns(&to);
> +	}

Have you considered just passing the nanosecond value here?
Since you do not appear to write it back, that would avoid
the complexities of dealing with timespec layout differences
and indirection.

> +	ids = kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*ids), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ids)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	if (copy_from_user(ids, u64_to_user_ptr(args->objs),
> +			   array_size(count, sizeof(*ids)))) {
> +		kfree(ids);
> +		return -EFAULT;
> +	}

This looks like memdup_user() would be slightly simpler.

      Arnd