Chris Rapier <rapier@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 6/6/23 2:59 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> Chris Rapier wrote: >>> openssh 9.3p1 >> .. >>> In function 'explicit_bzero', >>> inlined from 'kex_free_newkeys' at kex.c:743:2: >> kex.c in tag V_9_3_P1 doesn't call explicit_bzero() on line 743, >>> '__explicit_bzero_chk' writing 48 bytes into a region of size 8 >> .. >>> kex.h: In function 'kex_free_newkeys': >>> kex.h:116:18: note: destination object 'name' of size 8 >>> 116 | char *name; >> ... in fact kex_free_newkeys() in tag V_9_3_P1 doesn't ever call >> explicit_bzero() with an object called 'name'. >> >>> Not sure if this is a real problem or not but I thought I'd pass it >>> over just in case. >> Could you check if you have any patch applied on top of V_9_3_P1? > > > I'm using commit cb30fbdbee869f1ce11f06aa97e1cb8717a0b645 (HEAD, tag: > V_9_3_P1, openssh-master/V_9_3) and git diff isn't reporting anything > applied. > > And I just realized I grabbed that from the wrong window (which does > have patches applied). Same thing exists in the canonical code. Here > is the accurate one: > > > In file included from /usr/include/string.h:535, > from kex.c:34: > In function ‘explicit_bzero’, > inlined from ‘kex_free_newkeys’ at kex.c:742:2: > /usr/include/bits/string_fortified.h:72:3: warning: > ‘__explicit_bzero_chk’ writing 48 bytes into a region of size 8 > overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=] > 72 | __explicit_bzero_chk (__dest, __len, __glibc_objsize0 (__dest)); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In file included from kex.c:53: > kex.h: In function ‘kex_free_newkeys’: > kex.h:116:18: note: destination object ‘name’ of size 8 > 116 | char *name; > | ^~~~ > /usr/include/bits/string_fortified.h:66:6: note: in a call to function > ‘__explicit_bzero_chk’ declared with attribute ‘access (write_only, 1, > 2)’ > 66 | void __explicit_bzero_chk (void *__dest, size_t __len, size_t > __destlen) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Sorry about the confusion before. I always have too many terminals open. Not a comment on this particular bug, but as an FYI, sanitizers are known to sometimes cause false-positive *compile*-time warnings (not runtime failures, which are pretty much always legitimate). > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > openssh-unix-dev mailing list > openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
