linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Prevent trace_marker being bigger than unsigned short

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: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:33:01 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Prevent trace_marker being bigger than
 unsigned short

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 at 12:00, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> The error isn't printk, it's vsnprintf() that is writing to a seq_file
> to user space. There's no stack or printk involved here.

Look again. The code uses 'struct printf_spec' and we literally have a

   static_assert(sizeof(struct printf_spec) == 8);

because we want the compiler to generate sane calling conventions and
not waste space and code with arguments on the stack. That's literally
why we do all those limits in a bitfield - because the code in
question is written to say "unreasonable people can go screw
themselves".

I'm not interested in arguing this. We're not doing some completely
idiotic "let's edge up to the physical limit of what our printk code
is willing to do".

I'm perfectly happy having that WARN_ON() to continue to tell people
they are doing stupid things that won't work.

And if you ever decide that a sane limit is ok, you can send that in.

            Linus