linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] w1: Use kfree_sensitive() instead of memset(0) and kfree()

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]

Message-Id: <466B1286-FF37-46D1-BBD9-FCE3CC1252B6@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:08:42 +0200
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] w1: Use kfree_sensitive() instead of memset(0) and
 kfree()

On 30. Sep 2024, at 14:15, Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev> wrote:
> On 30. Sep 2024, at 13:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On 30/09/2024 13:44, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>>> Use kfree_sensitive() to simplify w1_unref_slave() and remove the
>>> following Coccinelle/coccicheck warning reported by
>>> kfree_sensitive.cocci:
>>> 
>>> WARNING opportunity for kfree_sensitive/kvfree_sensitive
>> 
>> So are you fixing coccinelle just to hide the warning or actually fixing
>> issue? Why this structure should be zeroed?
> 
> No issue, just a refactoring (+zeroing out) to silence the warning. The
> structure probably doesn't need to be zeroed out, but why is it done
> for DEBUG builds?
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
>>> ---
>>> Please note: this change assumes that #ifdef DEBUG is no longer needed
>>> and we should always zero out the memory.
>> 
>> But why are you assuming that? Your patch is not equivalent and I do not
>> see any explanation in commit msg why is that.

Sorry, just ignore this patch for now. I misread the code and mixed
things up.

Thanks,
Thorsten