linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 30/82] s390/kexec_file: Refactor intentional wrap-around calculation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:40:31 +0100
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nico Boehr
 <nrb@...ux.ibm.com>, Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>,
        Baoquan He
 <bhe@...hat.com>, Tao Liu <ltao@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Egorenkov
 <egorenar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R.
 Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
        Justin
 Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/82] s390/kexec_file: Refactor intentional wrap-around
 calculation

Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:27:05PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c b/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> index 8d207b82d9fe..e5e925423061 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> @@ -238,6 +238,7 @@ void *kexec_file_add_components(struct kimage *image,
>>  	unsigned long max_command_line_size = LEGACY_COMMAND_LINE_SIZE;
>>  	struct s390_load_data data = {0};
>>  	unsigned long minsize;
>> +	unsigned long sum;
>
> Please, use min_kernel_buf_len instead of sum.
>
> @Sven, could you please correct me if (minsize + max_command_line_size)
> means something else.

Your understanding is correct, minsize + max_command_line_size is the
minimum required size of the kernel image.