netdev - Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:14:02 +0100
From:   One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:     Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ben@...adent.org.uk,
        luis.henriques@...onical.com, avijitnsec@...eaurora.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream

> > I see someone did request it 2 years ago:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63479  
> 
> I don't think this is sufficient. Basically if you write one field in a
> struct after a memset again, the compiler is allowed by the standard to
> write padding bytes again, causing them to be undefined.

The question is simply what gcc actually does. The rest is C language
lawyering and since the kernel isn't written to the C language spec but
to gcc only gcc matters.

Alan