[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202311271628.E5EED48@keescook>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:29:25 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] neighbour: Fix __randomize_layout crash in struct
neighbour
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 03:33:58PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Previously, one-element and zero-length arrays were treated as true
> flexible arrays, even though they are actually "fake" flex arrays.
> The __randomize_layout would leave them untouched at the end of the
> struct, similarly to proper C99 flex-array members.
>
> However, this approach changed with commit 1ee60356c2dc ("gcc-plugins:
> randstruct: Only warn about true flexible arrays"). Now, only C99
> flexible-array members will remain untouched at the end of the struct,
> while one-element and zero-length arrays will be subject to randomization.
>
> Fix a `__randomize_layout` crash in `struct neighbour` by transforming
> zero-length array `primary_key` into a proper C99 flexible-array member.
>
> Fixes: 1ee60356c2dc ("gcc-plugins: randstruct: Only warn about true flexible arrays")
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20231124102458.GB1503258@e124191.cambridge.arm.com/
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Yes, please. Do we have any other 0-sized arrays hiding out in the
kernel? We need to get these all cleared...
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists