On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Characters with ASCII values greater than the size of
> filename_rev_map[] are valid filename
> characters. ecryptfs_decode_from_filename() will access kernel memory
> beyond that array, and ecryptfs_parse_tag_70_packet() will then
> decrypt those characters.
Ugh. I really don't like the patch.
Why isn't the patch just this one-liner:
diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c b/fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c
index 58609bde3b9f..7c50715c05d6 100644
--- a/fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c
+++ b/fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c
@@ -1943,7 +1943,7 @@ static unsigned char *portable_filename_chars
= ("-.0123456789ABCD"
/* We could either offset on every reverse map or just pad some 0x00's
* at the front here */
-static const unsigned char filename_rev_map[] = {
+static const unsigned char filename_rev_map[256] = {
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, /* 7 */
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, /* 15 */
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, /* 23 */
instead?
Making invalid characters over \x50 be somehow magically different
from invalid characters elsewhere seems just totally bogus. There are
lots of characters that aren't valid, and they have the
filename_rev_map[] value of 0 elsewhere.
So the simpler one-liner is not only simpler, but gives much saner
semantics, I think - now invalid character '\x05' gets exactly the
same result as invalid character '\xf5'.
Hmm?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
