linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Prevent open-coded arithmetic in kmalloc

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: <87ecrx4mzv.fsf@>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:00:20 +0200
From: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@...ola.com>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,  clm@...com,  dsterba@...e.com,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Prevent open-coded arithmetic in kmalloc

David Sterba @ 2025-09-23 09:00 +02:

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 08:47:35AM +0200, Miquel Sabaté Solà wrote:
>> David Sterba @ 2025-09-23 08:13 +02:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 02:47:13PM +0200, Miquel Sabaté Solà wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> David Sterba @ 2025-09-22 12:28 +02:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 04:58:15PM +0200, Miquel Sabaté Solà wrote:
>> >> >> As pointed out in the documentation, calling 'kmalloc' with open-coded
>> >> >> arithmetic can lead to unfortunate overflows and this particular way of
>> >> >> using it has been deprecated. Instead, it's preferred to use
>> >> >> 'kmalloc_array' in cases where it might apply so an overflow check is
>> >> >> performed.
>> >> >
>> >> > So this is an API cleanup and it makes sense to use the checked
>> >> > multiplication but it should be also said that this is not fixing any
>> >> > overflow because in all cases the multipliers are bounded small numbers
>> >> > derived from number of items in leaves/nodes.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it's just an API cleanup and I don't think it fixes any current bug
>> >> in the code base. So no need to CC stable or anything like that.
>> >
>> > Still the changelog should say explicitly that it's not a bug fix before
>> > somebody assigns a CVE to it because it mentions overflow.
>>
>> Got it! I will submit a v2 and make this more explicit.
>
> No need to, I've updated the changelog at commit time.

Ah, then ignore the v2 patch set I've just sent, which simply changes
the commit log as you suggested.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (898 bytes)