Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753416Ab0KXKqI (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:46:08 -0500 Received: from mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net ([84.203.253.98]:19722 "HELO mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753181Ab0KXKqG (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4CECECA2.6070301@draigBrady.com> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:44:50 +0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig_Brady?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Dilger CC: wharms@bfs.de, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Morton , Vasiliy Kulikov , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: select: fix information leak to userspace References: <1289421483-23907-1-git-send-email-segooon@gmail.com> <20101112120834.33062900.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <8D90F8B2-EA29-4EB9-9807-294CE0D5523B@dilger.ca> <20101114092533.GB5323@albatros> <20101114180643.593d19ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1289848341.2607.125.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101123140111.GA3816@hack> <4CEBD37E.5060107@bfs.de> <203E1F2A-2D04-4B7F-8D1B-9DC24522CB5E@dilger.ca> In-Reply-To: <203E1F2A-2D04-4B7F-8D1B-9DC24522CB5E@dilger.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1375 Lines: 28 On 23/11/10 18:02, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-11-23, at 07:45, walter harms wrote: >> Maybe we can convince the gcc people to make 0 padding default. That will not solve the problems for other compilers but when they claim "works like gcc" we can press then to support this also. I can imagine that this will close some other subtle leaks also. > > It makes the most sense to tackle this at the GCC level, since the added overhead of doing memset(0) on the whole struct may be non-trivial for commonly-used and/or large structures. Since GCC is already explicitly zeroing the _used_ fields in the struct, it can much more easily determine whether there is padding in the structure, and zero those few bytes as needed. Zero padding structs is part of C90. Details here: http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/gcc/auto_init.html gcc doesn't zero pad when _all_ elements are specified. So perhaps just: - struct timespec rts; - struct timeval rtv; + struct timespec rts = {0,}; + struct timeval rtv = {0,}; One could also move the rtv declaration to the scope where it's used. cheers, P?draig. -- 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/