[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: avoid buffer overflow in guest_console_write()



On 29.11.19 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.11.2019 14:37, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 29.11.19 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.11.2019 13:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/11/2019 12:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.11.2019 13:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/11/2019 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.11.2019 13:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] console: avoid buffer overflow in 
guest_console_write()"):
On 29.11.2019 11:22, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Is sizeof(array[0]) always 0, or is this just a GCC-ism ?  Godbolt
suggests is 0 on all compiler we support.

Either way, isn't the more common idiom + 0ul ?  Personally, I feel that
is clearer to follow.
I decided against + 0ul or alike because in principle size_t
and unsigned long are different types. In particular 32-bit
x86 gcc uses unsigned int for size_t, and hence min()'s
type safety check would cause the build to fail there. The
same risk obviously exists for any 32-bit arch (e.g. Arm32,
but I haven't checked what type it actually uses).
I don't know what i wrong with
     (size_t)0
which is shorter, even !
True. Yet it contains a cast, no matter how risk-free it may be
in this case. With a cast, I could as well have written (yet
shorter) (size_t)count.
Given that min() has a very strict typecheck, I think we should permit
any use of an explicit cast in a single operand, because it *is* safer
than switching to the min_t() route to make things compile.
Well, I can switch to (size_t)count if this is liked better
overall.

Personally, I'd prefer this option most of all.

Okay, I've switched to this, but while doing so I started wondering
why we'd then not use

          kcount = min(count, (unsigned int)sizeof(kbuf) - 1);

which is an (often slightly cheaper) 32-bit operation (and which
is what I had actually started from).

While modifying guest_console_write(), would you mind writing a '\0'
to kbuf[kcount]? There is a "conring_puts(kbuf);" later in this
function which would like a 0 terminated string as input.

That's not the right change for this problem, I think. Now that
we support embedded nul characters, a count should be passed
instead. Julien?

I also wouldn't want to merge this into this patch; I'm happy to
send a separate one.

Yeah, I now realized that it is easy to just add a count parameter to
conring_puts() as it is called only twice and count is already known
at the callsites.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.