[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:03:36 -0500
From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting behavior with struct initiailization
This is unnecessary and wastes a lot of cycles. There's no reason to
even consider anything that performs worse than a simple memset(&arg,
0, sizeof(arg)).
-Dan
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Bhadrinath <bitstrat@...il.com> wrote:
> One solution that could ensure no padding bits are copied uninitialized,
>
> *******************************************************************************
> struct test{ int a; char b; int c;};
>
>
> // Let arg be the one to be copied into user space
> struct test arg = { .a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3 };
>
> // Create an equivalent structure
> struct test argC;
>
> .
> .
> .
> // Do all the operations on arg and just before passing it to the function
> // clear the argC to zero
>
> memset_s(&argC, 0,sizeof argC);
>
> // Now copy the contents of arg into argC one by one
> memcpy(&argC.a,&arg.a,sizeof arg.a);
> memcpy(&argC.b,&arg.b,sizeof arg.b);
> memcpy(&argC.c,&arg.c,sizeof arg.c);
> //This ensures that no uninitialized padding bits are passed to the user space
>
> copy_to_user(ptr,&argC,sizeof argC);
>
> *******************************************************************************
>
> Comments and other ideas are welcome.
>
> Regards
> Bhadrinath
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
