netdev - RE: [PATCH] Remove hardcoded static string length

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: <30d65ea9170d4f60bd76ed516541cb46@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 09:14:53 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Kenny Ho' <y2kenny@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@....com>,
	"David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Remove hardcoded static string length

From: Kenny Ho
> Sent: 24 May 2023 19:01
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 1:43 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> >
> > The other end of the socket should not blow up, because that would be
> > an obvious DOS or buffer overwrite attack vector. So you need to
> > decide, do you want to expose such issues and see if anything does
> > actually blow up, or do you want to do a bit more work and correctly
> > terminate the string when capped?
> 
> Right... I guess it's not clear to me that existing implementations
> null-terminate correctly when UTS_RELEASE causes the string to exceed
> the 65 byte size of rxrpc_version_string.  We can of course do better,
> but I hesitate to do strncpy because I am not familiar with this code
> base enough to tell if this function is part of some hot path where
> strncpy matters.

The whole thing looks like it is expecting a max of 64 characters
and a terminating '\0'.
Since UTE_RELEASE goes in between two fixed strings truncating
the whole thing to 64/65 chars/bytes doesn't seem ideal.

I does rather beg the question as what is in UTS_RELEASE when
it exceeds (IIRC) about 48 characters?

If UTS_RELEASE is getting that long, it might easily exceed
the 64 characters returned by uname().

I suspect that you need to truncate UTS_RELEASE to limit
the string to 64 characters - so something like:
	static char id[65];
	if (!id[0])
		snprintf(id, sizeof id, "xxx-%.48s-yyy", UTS_RELEASE);

Using an on-stack buffer almost certainly wouldn't matter.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)