netdev - Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: Fix array-bounds warning in fragment copy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1490614716.3393.6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:38:36 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: Fix array-bounds warning in fragment copy


> > > -	const skb_frag_t *frag = &sh->frags[-1];
> > > +	const skb_frag_t *frag = &sh->frags[0];
[...]
> > > +	frag--;
> > 
> > Isn't it just a question of time until the compiler will see
> > through this trick and warn about it?
> 
> Frag is incremented again before being accessed, so there is nothing
> for the compiler to see through here.

But by that argument the existing code was already fine. The compiler
flagged it nonetheless, perhaps because it couldn't prove it was
incremented unconditionally/in all branches?

johannes