On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:09 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > Last month I sent in 80de7c3138ee9fd86a98696fd2cf7ad89b995d0a to remove > a user triggerable BUG in mempolicy. > > Ben Hutchings pointed out to me that my change introduced a potential leak > of stack contents to userspace, because none of the callers check the return > value. > > This patch adds the missing return checking, and also clears the buffer > beforehand. > > Reported-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchi...@solarflare.com>
I was wearing my other hat at the time (b...@decadent.org.uk). > Cc: sta...@kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> > > --- > unanswered question: why are the buffer sizes here different ? which is > correct? [...] Further question: why even use an intermediate buffer on the stack? Both callers want to write the result to a seq_file. Should mpol_str() then be replaced with a seq_mpol()? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, about L-Space IRC channel #afp
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
