netdev - Re: [Security] TIPC security issues

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	drosenberg@...curity.com, jon.maloy@...csson.com,
	allan.stephens@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Security] TIPC security issues

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:51:19 -0700

> So doing this in verify_iovec() (and verify_compat_iovec - which I
> didn't do in my RFC patch) really does fix everything, and means that
> the individual socket types never have to worry about the subtle cases
> of overflow in any type.

I completely agree about capping things in verify_iovec().

And it was completely erroneous of me to change verify_iovec() to
return 'long' instead of 'int', it should have stayed at 'int' with a
cap.

Because the protocols don't even have a way to return something larger
than an 'int' as a return value due to the signature of the recvmsg()
and sendmsg() socket ops.
--
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