netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix /proc/net/snmp as memory corruptor

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: <OF3DE3524D.66B1A705-ON882574FB.00729B02-882574FB.0073D449@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:05:12 -0800
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix /proc/net/snmp as memory corruptor

> 
> If you are not sure what I am talking about, then you should probably
> not use static variables at all. I found this fix quite obvious...

        Actually, I didn't realize "out" was static -- was looking at just
the patch, and obviously missing your point.
        I don't have a problem with 16 ints on the stack (or shorts, as
you pointed out)-- I didn't want the data on the stack, which may be
64-bit ints. In your patch, you're collecting all of it on the stack
(doubling its size).
        If there is no interlocking at a higher layer (and I haven't 
looked
at this in a long time...) (ie, exclusive opens), then I agree, it
shouldn't be static.

        Why not just that? (ie, add count=0 as Alexey did and remove the
static qualifier from "out")

                                +-DLS

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html