[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id:
<170969462846.24513.2351243182107643239.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 03:10:28 +0000
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...nel.org,
kuniyu@...zon.com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com, leitao@...ian.org,
alexander@...alicyn.com, dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sock: Use unsafe_memcpy() for sock_copy()
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:29:31 -0800 you wrote:
> While testing for places where zero-sized destinations were still showing
> up in the kernel, sock_copy() and inet_reqsk_clone() were found, which
> are using very specific memcpy() offsets for both avoiding a portion of
> struct sock, and copying beyond the end of it (since struct sock is really
> just a common header before the protocol-specific allocation). Instead
> of trying to unravel this historical lack of container_of(), just switch
> to unsafe_memcpy(), since that's effectively what was happening already
> (memcpy() wasn't checking 0-sized destinations while the code base was
> being converted away from fake flexible arrays).
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [v3] sock: Use unsafe_memcpy() for sock_copy()
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/ff73f8344e58
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists