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  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:	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Eugene Teo <>
cc:	Vlad Yasevich <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [Security] [PATCH] sctp: add verification checks to SCTP_AUTH_KEY

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Eugene Teo wrote:
> > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ static struct sctp_auth_bytes *sctp_auth_create_key(__u32 key_len, gfp_t gfp)
> This should be __u16 key_len.

Hmm? If it fits in a u16, then there is no worry about overflow.

> >  	struct sctp_auth_bytes *key;
> >  
> > +	/* Verify that we are not going to overflow INT_MAX */
> > +	if ((INT_MAX - key_len) < sizeof(struct sctp_auth_bytes))
> > +		return NULL;
> Shouldn't this be UINT_MAX? But then if you are going to change
> sctp_auth_create_key() to accept __u16 key_len, then it should be

If it's ushort, then it shouldn't need any test at all from an overflow 
standpoint. The addition simply can't overflow, since it's always done in 
"size_t" due to the sizeof.

But if it can overflow, I actually think it makes more sense to test for 
something smaller than the "exact" overflow. A key can't reasonably be all 
that long _anyway_, so it's probably better to test for something _much_ 

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists