[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202309151144.E420B9F8@keescook>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:44:40 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>,
Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>,
Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] gve: Use size_add() in call to struct_size()
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:17:49PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> If, for any reason, `tx_stats_num + rx_stats_num` wraps around, the
> protection that struct_size() adds against potential integer overflows
> is defeated. Fix this by hardening call to struct_size() with size_add().
>
> Fixes: 691f4077d560 ("gve: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Thanks, yes, this will maintain SIZE_MAX saturation if it happens.
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists