netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/10] lib: packing: refuse operating on bit indices which exceed size of buffer

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: <20241002134406.a5vpk2cli5nqlvfu@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 16:44:06 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/10] lib: packing: refuse operating on bit
 indices which exceed size of buffer

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:19:34PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> 
> While reworking the implementation, it became apparent that this check
> does not exist.
> 
> There is no functional issue yet, because at call sites, "startbit" and
> "endbit" are always hardcoded to correct values, and never come from the
> user.
> 
> Even with the upcoming support of arbitrary buffer lengths, the
> "startbit >= 8 * pbuflen" check will remain correct. This is because
> we intend to always interpret the packed buffer in a way that avoids
> discontinuities in the available bit indices.
> 
> Fixes: 554aae35007e ("lib: Add support for generic packing operations")
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> Tested-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> ---

I thought that Fixes: tags are not in order for patches which are not
intended to be backported, and that is also clear from the commit message?