DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=pacbell.net;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=Ooqt0DdeNNb6Nwf44HSvICHZbq0R29nmPdYORjdeIAL3fzgOjp27XCJdN+ya0JqmtNMU+zG9YeDkKZANdgBVK2JhuTuKVdaGvnB4tqzAvqgVbB1gBlgKTYkP8Qq+aPCZP/mWjxsSsJZAaSzp45+Yj5S/BjbPJrx4WU5JubF1Vjk=;
Message-ID: <305211.72066.qm@web180314.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: core: fix information leak to userland
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Chris Frey <cdfrey@foursquare.net>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1011061441150.28403-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1741
Lines: 56


--- On Sat, 11/6/10, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:


> > 
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the C standard here to
> consult.? 
> However...? Although I'm perfectly willing to believe
> that the standard
> requires fields in a structure to be initialized to 0 if
> they
> aren't mentioned explicitly in the initializer, I'm
> considerably more
> doubtful that it also requires padding to be initialized!

ISTR initialization-to-zero is the standard
behavior defined for all _memory_ that gets
initialized ... not just named fields ...
whether the init is "static", "bss", or not.
> 
> And I certainly wouldn't want to depend on compilers
> _always_ using 
> memset to do this initialization.

Of course not; just rely on init-to-zero, and
let the compiler worry about efficiency. In
some cases memset(); in others, the result
might be as if memset were inlined, so only
a few "write a zero at this address" type
instructions would be needed.
> 
> > There's certainly a fair amount of code I've seen
> > that uses runtime initializers like that, to zero
> > memory.? I can't believe i's _all_ broken!?
> ;)
> 
> Zeroing memory that belongs to a declared field is
> different from 
> zeroing padding bytes.? Maybe what you remember seeing
> is the first and 
> not the second.

I remember seeing both, and at one point looking
at the issue to verify that padding was treated
uniformly (like other memory).  Also, writing code
that relied on zero-initted padding.

- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/