lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/core: check format and overflows in cgroup2 cpu.max
From
Date
On 06.03.2019 19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 08:11:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Konstantin.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:03:24PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>> Ditto as the blkio patch. Unless there is a correctness problem, my
>>>> preference is towards keeping the parsing functions simple and I don't
>>>> think the kernel needs to play the role of strict input verifier here
>>>> as long as the only foot getting shot is the user's own.
>>>
>>> IMHO non-strict interface more likely hides bugs and could cause
>>> problems for future changes.
>>>
>>> Here is only only one fatal bug - buffer overflow in sscanf because
>>> %s has no limit.
>>
>> Ah, indeed. Can you please post a patch to fix that problem first?

Done.
Please see [PATCH] sched/core: fix buffer overflow in cgroup2 property cpu.max

>>
>>> Strict validation could be done as more strict sscanf variant or
>>> some kind of extension for format string.
>>
>> I don't necessarily disagree with you; however, what often ends up
>> with these manually crafted parsing approach are 1. code which is
>> unnecessarily difficult to follow 2. different subset of validations
>> and parsing bugs (of course) everywhere.
>>
>> Given the above, I tend to lean towards dump sscanf() parsing. If we
>> wanna improve the situation, I think the right thing to do is either
>> improving sscanf or introducing new helpers to parse these things
>> rather than hand-crafting each site. It is really error-prone.

I'm playing with sscanf right now.

Both problems (integer overflows and matching end of string)
are relatively easy to fix without breaking sane compatibility.

>
> Always use a field width specifier with %s. Which is exactly what the
> proposed patch did IIRC.
>
> Maybe that's something checkpatch could warn about.
>

This could be done mandatory.
In-kernel sscanf always requires width for "%[...]".

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-06 18:21    [W:0.037 / U:55.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site