Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1700417
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning |
| Date | 2017-08-01 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9qTf-35o-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <u9cZY-3eT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9dsZ-3oE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9pXc-2wz-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9qgx-2Se-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9qgy-2Se-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Moni Shoua <monis@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>> default:
>>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> what happens if you replace 16 with sizeof(struct in6_addr)?
>>>>
>>>> Same thing: the problem is that gcc already knows the size of the structure we
>>>> pass in here, and it is in fact shorter.
>>>
>>> So gcc is ignoring both the cast (to 16 byte struct in6_addr) and the
>>> caller's actual 128 byte struct sockaddr_storage, and looking only at
>>> struct sockaddr? That seems really weird.
>>
>> Using a sockaddr_storage on the stack would address the warning, but
>> the question was about just changing the hardcoded 16 to a sizeof()
>> operation, and that has no effect.
>
> Right, I didn't mean that; I was curious why the fortify macro
> resulted in an error at all. The callers are casting from struct
> sockaddr_storage (large enough) to struct sockaddr (not large enough),
> and then the inline is casting back to sockaddr_in6 (large enough). I
> would have expected fortify to check either sockaddr_storage or
> sockaddr_in6, but not sockaddr.
To clarify: this happens in inetaddr_event(), which has a sockaddr_in
on the stack, not a sockaddr_storage. I tried casting the sockaddr_in
pointer to sockaddr_storage, but that did not help. Changing the
type of the stack variable to sockaddr_storage does help.
Arnd
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-31 09:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Moni Shoua <monis@mellanox.com> - 2017-07-31 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-31 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> - 2017-07-31 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-31 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> - 2017-07-31 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-31 21:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-07-31 23:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-31 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-07-31 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 23:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-08-01 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-08-01 00:10 +0200
csiph-web