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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:18:42 -0500 (EST)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <>
To:	Michael Cree <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,,,
	Matt Turner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 117/133] alpha: fix broken network checksum

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Michael Cree wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:08:38PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 3.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Mikulas Patocka <>
> > 
> > commit 0ef38d70d4118b2ce1a538d14357be5ff9dc2bbd upstream.
> > 
> > The patch 3ddc5b46a8e90f3c9251338b60191d0a804b0d92 breaks networking on
> > alpha (there is a follow-up fix 5cfe8f1ba5eebe6f4b6e5858cdb1a5be4f3272a6,
> > but networking is still broken even with the second patch).
> I wonder whether that follow-up (partial) fix mentioned
> (5cfe8f1ba5eebe6f4b6e5858cdb1a5be4f3272a6) should be pulled into 3.12 stable
> too?
> Cheers
> Michael.


It is quite confusing - csum_partial_copy_from_user is only called from 
csum_and_copy_from_user in include/net/checksum.h.

csum_and_copy_from_user already verifies the source memory range with 
access_ok. Despite this, people started to add access_ok to many 
architecture-specific versions of csum_partial_copy_from_user (for example 

It seems that the best thing is to revert 
5cfe8f1ba5eebe6f4b6e5858cdb1a5be4f3272a6 and csum_partial_copy_from_user 
change from 3ddc5b46a8e90f3c9251338b60191d0a804b0d92.

David, you are maintainer of networking - does it have any deeper sense to 
perform access_ok in csum_partial_copy_from_user if the caller performs 
this check already? Should this be just removed?

Also - the x86 and alpha implementation of csum_and_copy_from_user zero 
the destination buffer on userspace-access error - but 
csum_and_copy_from_user (that calls these function) doesn't zero the 
destination buffer on error. Should the destination buffer be zeroed on 
error or not?

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