On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:51:32AM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/2023 7:02 PM, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 07:33:46AM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > > Zero out the buffer for readlink() since readlink() does not append a
> > > terminating null byte to the buffer.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 833c12ce0f430 ("selftests/x86/lam: Add inherit test cases for linear-address masking")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > > index eb0e46905bf9..9f06942a8e25 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > > @@ -680,7 +680,7 @@ static int handle_execve(struct testcases *test)
> > > perror("Fork failed.");
> > > ret = 1;
> > > } else if (pid == 0) {
> > > - char path[PATH_MAX];
> > > + char path[PATH_MAX] = {0};
> > Shouldn't it be PATH_MAX+1 to handle the case when readlink(2) stores
> > exactly PATH_MAX bytes into the buffer?
> According to the definition of PATH_MAX in include/uapi/linux/limits.h
> #define PATH_MAX 4096 /* # chars in a path name including nul */
>
> IIUC, Linux limits the path length to 4095 and PATH_MAX includes the
> terminating nul.
Consider the case when kernel bump PATH_MAX to 8192. The binary that
compiled from lam.c against the older kernel headers will get compromised.
Increase the size of the buffer by one or pass PATH_MAX - 1 as buffer size
to readlink(2).
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
