archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "PaX Team" <>
To: Mark Rutland <>
	Kees Cook <>,
	Emese Revfy <>,
	"AKASHI, Takahiro" <>,
	park jinbum <>,
	Daniel Micay <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: Add structleak for more stack initialization
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:30:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116152425.GG5908@leverpostej>

On 16 Jan 2017 at 15:24, Mark Rutland wrote:

> To me, it seems that the __user annotation can only be an indicator of
> an issue by chance. We have structures with __user pointers in structs
> that will never be copied to userspace, and conversely we have structs
> that don't contain a __user field, but will be copied to userspace.
> Maybe it happens that structs in more complex systems are more likely to
> contain some __user pointer. Was that part of the rationale?

it's as i explained in an earlier email: we wanted to pattern match a
specific bug situation and this was the easiest way (as you can see,
the plugin's code is very simple, not much effort went into it).

> I wonder if there's any analysis we can do of data passing into
> copy_to_user() and friends. I guess we can't follow the data flow across
> compilation units, but we might be able to follow it well enough if we
> added a new attribute that described whether data was to be copied to
> userspace.

there're are all kinds of data flow analyses you can do within and even
across translation units (summary info a'la size overflow hash tables or
LTO). i never went into that direction because i think the security goal
can be achieved without the performance impact of forced initialization.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-01-16 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-13 22:02 Kees Cook
2017-01-14 10:03 ` PaX Team
2017-01-16 15:24   ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-16 19:08     ` Daniel Micay
2017-01-16 19:30     ` PaX Team [this message]
2017-01-17 17:48       ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-17 18:54         ` PaX Team
2017-01-18 10:48           ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-17 17:48   ` Kees Cook
2017-01-16 11:54 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-16 12:26   ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-01-16 19:22   ` PaX Team
2017-01-17 10:42     ` Dave P Martin
     [not found]       ` <>
2017-01-17 18:07         ` Dave P Martin
2017-01-17 19:25           ` PaX Team
2017-01-17 22:04             ` Dave P Martin
2017-01-17 17:56   ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: Add structleak for more stack initialization' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).