netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tools: bpf: handle long path in jit disasm

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]

Message-Id: <20171103.095115.2252068730328661789.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:51:15 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     mark.d.rustad@...el.com
Cc:     bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tools: bpf: handle long path in jit disasm

From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:19:44 +0000

> 
>> On Nov 2, 2017, at 1:09 AM, Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> 
>> Use PATH_MAX instead of hardcoded array size 256
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>
 ...
>> static void get_asm_insns(uint8_t *image, size_t len, int opcodes)
>> {
>> 	int count, i, pc = 0;
>> -	char tpath[256];
>> +	char tpath[PATH_MAX];
> 
> Seems like such a nice thing, *but* PATH_MAX is 4096. Can things really tolerate 4k on the stack here?

This is userland code, why wouldn't it be able to handle 4K on the
stack?