lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: mpol_to_str revisited.
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:09 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Last month I sent in 80de7c3138ee9fd86a98696fd2cf7ad89b995d0a to remove
> a user triggerable BUG in mempolicy.
>
> Ben Hutchings pointed out to me that my change introduced a potential leak
> of stack contents to userspace, because none of the callers check the return value.
>
> This patch adds the missing return checking, and also clears the buffer beforehand.
>
> Reported-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>

I was wearing my other hat at the time (ben@decadent.org.uk).

> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
>
> ---
> unanswered question: why are the buffer sizes here different ? which is correct?
[...]

Further question: why even use an intermediate buffer on the stack?
Both callers want to write the result to a seq_file. Should mpol_str()
then be replaced with a seq_mpol()?

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, about L-Space IRC channel #afp
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-09 03:21    [W:0.432 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site