From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754959Ab0IQGws (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:52:48 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48521 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753391Ab0IQGwr (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:52:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20100916.235305.233408955.davem@davemloft.net> To: w@1wt.eu Cc: drosenberg@vsecurity.com, security@kernel.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeffm@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca Subject: Re: [Security] [PATCH v4] drivers/net/tulip/de4x5.c: fix union member name in DE4X5_GET_REG ioctl From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20100917063602.GA2341@1wt.eu> References: <1284701436.2565.6.camel@dan> <20100916.223441.93463391.davem@davemloft.net> <20100917063602.GA2341@1wt.eu> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Willy Tarreau Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:36:02 +0200 > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:34:41PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Dan Rosenberg >> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:30:36 -0400 >> >> > Tiring doesn't begin to describe it. Formatting undamaged. >> >> :-) Thanks. >> >> > This was previously reported as a security issue due to leakage of >> > uninitialized stack memory. Jeff Mahoney pointed out that this is >> > incorrect since the copied data is from a union (rather than a struct). >> > Therefore, this patch is only under consideration for the sake of >> > correctness, and is not security relevant. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Rosenberg >> > Acked-by: Grant Grundler >> >> Applied. > > David, just for the record, as was already reported on the list, this > fix is finally more a cleanup than a security fix because "tmp" is a > union and not a struct, so tmp.addr == tmp.lval. I can read, thanks :-) That's why I applied it to net-next-2.6 and not net-2.6