Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:30:25 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        zhanglin <zhang.lin16@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sys.c: Avoid copying possible padding bytes in
 copy_to_user
Message-ID: <20191028073025.GB1944@kadam>
References: <dfa331c00881d61c8ee51577a082d8bebd61805c.camel@perches.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910270644590.3186@hadrien>
 <92212e57d45f4410be654183f5dcb1e98d636ef2.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <92212e57d45f4410be654183f5dcb1e98d636ef2.camel@perches.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

We should be able to use memzero_explicit(), right?

The fact that we memset() can't be used to prevent information leaks has
always worried me.  Everyone predicted that we would have bugs like this
where memset doesn't work as expected.

regards,
dan carpenter