Re: [PATCH 2/4] lib/vsprintf.c: also improve sanity check in bstr_printf()

2015-09-28 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > Quoting from 2aa2f9e21e4e ("lib/vsprintf.c: improve sanity check in > vsnprintf()"): > > On 64 bit, size may very well be huge even if bit 31 happens to be 0. > Somehow it doesn't feel right that one can pass a 5 GiB buffer but

Re: [PATCH 2/4] lib/vsprintf.c: also improve sanity check in bstr_printf()

2015-09-28 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > Quoting from 2aa2f9e21e4e ("lib/vsprintf.c: improve sanity check in > vsnprintf()"): > > On 64 bit, size may very well be huge even if bit 31 happens to be 0. > Somehow it doesn't feel right that one can

[PATCH 2/4] lib/vsprintf.c: also improve sanity check in bstr_printf()

2015-09-25 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
Quoting from 2aa2f9e21e4e ("lib/vsprintf.c: improve sanity check in vsnprintf()"): On 64 bit, size may very well be huge even if bit 31 happens to be 0. Somehow it doesn't feel right that one can pass a 5 GiB buffer but not a 3 GiB one. So cap at INT_MAX as was probably the intention

[PATCH 2/4] lib/vsprintf.c: also improve sanity check in bstr_printf()

2015-09-25 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
Quoting from 2aa2f9e21e4e ("lib/vsprintf.c: improve sanity check in vsnprintf()"): On 64 bit, size may very well be huge even if bit 31 happens to be 0. Somehow it doesn't feel right that one can pass a 5 GiB buffer but not a 3 GiB one. So cap at INT_MAX as was probably the intention