Re: Bogus buffer length check in linux-2.6.11 read()

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

linux-os wrote:

> 
> 
> I don't know how much more precise I could have been. I show the
> code that will cause the observed condition. I explain that this
> condition is new, that it doesn't correspond to the previous
> behavior.
> 
> Never before was some buffer checked for length before some data
> was written to it. The EFAULT is supposed to occur IFF a write
> attempt occurs outside the caller's accessible address space.
> This used to be done by hardware during the write to user-space.
> This had zero impact upon performance. Now there is some
> software added that adds CPU cycles, subtracts performance,
> and cannot possibly do anything useful.
> 
> Also, the code was written to show the problem. The code
> is not designed to be an example of good coding practice.
> 
> The actual problem observed with the new kernel was
> when some legacy code used gets() instead of fgets().
> The call returned immediately with an EFAULT because
> the 'C' runtime library put some value that the kernel
> didn't 'like' (4096 bytes) in the subsequent read.


If you use a buggy program, that had a hidden bug now exposed because 
of different kernel checks, dont complain, and use your brain.

If you do

$ export VAR1=" A very very very very long chain just to be sure my 
environnement (which is placed at the top of the stack at exec() time) 
will use at least 4 Kb  : then my litle buggy program will run if I 
type few chars but destroy my stack if I type a long string or if I 
use : cat longfile | ./xxx : So I wont complain again on lkml that I 
am sooooo lazy. Oh what could I type now, I'm tired, maybe I can copy 
this string to others variables. Yes... sure...."
$ export VAR2=$VAR1
$ export VAR3=$VAR1
$ export VAR4=$VAR1
$ export VAR5=$VAR1
Then check your env size is large enough
$ env|wc -c
    4508
$ ./xxx
./xxx 2>/dev/null

Apparently the kernel thinks 4096 is a good length!

So what ? Your program works well now, on a linux-2.6.11 typical 
machine. Ready to buffer overflow again.

Maybe you can pay me $1000 :)

Eric Dumazet
> 
> This is code for which there are no sources available
> and it is required to be used, cannot be replaced,
> cannot be thrown away and costs about US$ 10,000
> from a company that is no longer in business.
> 
> Somebody's arbitrary and capricious addition of spook
> code destroyed an application's functionality.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson