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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ab39776-190c-4abf-960a-9eb05dd54fe0@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 14:28:47 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....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 10/2/2024 6:44 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 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?

Ah, yea. I had intended to drop those, but forgot.

Thanks,
Jake