netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use _K_SS_MAXSIZE instead of absolute value

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

Message-ID: <20230719170445.30993-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:04:45 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <leitao@...ian.org>
CC: <alexander@...alicyn.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<dhowells@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kernelxing@...cent.com>,
	<kuba@...nel.org>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>, <leit@...a.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
	<martin.lau@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use _K_SS_MAXSIZE instead of absolute value

From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 01:44:12 -0700
> Looking at sk_getsockopt function, it is unclear why 128 is a magical
> number.
> 
> Use the proper macro, so it becomes clear to understand what the value
> mean, and get a reference where it is coming from (user-exported API).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> ---
>  net/core/sock.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 9370fd50aa2c..58b6f00197d6 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1815,7 +1815,7 @@ int sk_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
>  
>  	case SO_PEERNAME:
>  	{
> -		char address[128];
> +		char address[_K_SS_MAXSIZE];

I guess you saw a bug caught by the fortified memcpy(), but this
doesn't fix it properly.

I'll post a series soon that fix the issue and another realted one.

Thanks!


>  
>  		lv = sock->ops->getname(sock, (struct sockaddr *)address, 2);
>  		if (lv < 0)
> -- 
> 2.34.1