linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stable: crypto: sha256

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]

Message-ID: <jm3bk53sqkqv6eg7rekzhn6bgld5byhkmksdjyxmrkifku2dmc@w7xnklqsrpee>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:45:07 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sashal@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...a.com, Michael van der Westhuizen <rmikey@...a.com>, 
	Tobias Fleig <tfleig@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stable: crypto: sha256 - fix crash at kexec

Hello Eric,

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 09:23:05AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:

> This looks fine, but technically 'unsigned int' would be more
> appropriate here, given the context.  If we look at the whole function
> in 6.12, we can see that it took an 'unsigned int' length:

Ack. Do you want me to send a v2 with `unsigned int` instead?

> This also suggests that files with lengths greater than UINT_MAX are
> still broken.  Is that okay?

I've tested it but kexec fails to load it, so, it seems we are safe
here:

	# kexec --load kernel --initrd foo 
	kexec_file_load failed: File too large

> Anyway, I'm glad that I fixed all these functions to use size_t lengths
> in newer kernels...

Thanks for that!
--breno