On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Moni Shoua <monis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>> default:
>>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> what happens if you replace 16 with sizeof(struct in6_addr)?
>>>>
>>>> Same thing: the problem is that gcc already knows the size of the structure we
>>>> pass in here, and it is in fact shorter.
>>>
>>> So gcc is ignoring both the cast (to 16 byte struct in6_addr) and the
>>> caller's actual 128 byte struct sockaddr_storage, and looking only at
>>> struct sockaddr? That seems really weird.
>>
>> Using a sockaddr_storage on the stack would address the warning, but
>> the question was about just changing the hardcoded 16 to a sizeof()
>> operation, and that has no effect.
>
> Right, I didn't mean that; I was curious why the fortify macro
> resulted in an error at all. The callers are casting from struct
> sockaddr_storage (large enough) to struct sockaddr (not large enough),
> and then the inline is casting back to sockaddr_in6 (large enough). I
> would have expected fortify to check either sockaddr_storage or
> sockaddr_in6, but not sockaddr.
To clarify: this happens in inetaddr_event(), which has a sockaddr_in
on the stack, not a sockaddr_storage. I tried casting the sockaddr_in
pointer to sockaddr_storage, but that did not help. Changing the
type of the stack variable to sockaddr_storage does help.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
