From the menuconfig program of the Linux 2.0.40 kernel:

    const char *title = NULL;

... title gets pointed to something somewhere in here ...

    title[atoi(argv[offset+4])-4] = 0;

Carnildo:

the Linux 2.0.40 kernel:

 

Wow. That's a trip down memory lane... 

 I've never had menuconfig segfault on me, so apparently it works. Yeah, code is overly complex and a bit unreadable, but that applies to a lot of old open-source C code.

I also wouldn't consider menuconfig as a part of the kernel.

Unless there's some validation of the offset in the parameters list and limit check on the INT value of that parameter before this line it seems like you could pass in a parameter value that would unintentionally overwrite memory not related to the menu.  Pretty common looking C code, but still scary.

jpa:

 I've never had menuconfig segfault on me, so apparently it works. Yeah, code is overly complex and a bit unreadable, but that applies to a lot of old open-source C code.

I also wouldn't consider menuconfig as a part of the kernel.

The compiler isn't doing its job if you think this works.  The definition is "const char *title," which means title is a pointer to a const string.  The assignment to title[offset] shouldn't be allowed at all.

My compiler definitely objects: \const_test.cpp(12): error C2166: l-value specifies const object

So, tell me again how this works?

mrprogguy:

So, tell me again how this works?

It works via a bug in an older version of GCC. To get it to compile under a current version, you need to modify the code, unless there's an option to turn the bugfix off that I haven't seen.

jreasons68:

Unless there's some validation of the offset in the parameters list and limit check on the INT value of that parameter before this line it seems like you could pass in a parameter value that would unintentionally overwrite memory not related to the menu.  Pretty common looking C code, but still scary.

If someone is in a position to recompile your kernel for you, you're pwned pretty hard anyway, regardless of an overflow in a (non-suid) build tool that's part of the process!

tgape:

mrprogguy:

So, tell me again how this works?

It works via a bug in an older version of GCC. To get it to compile under a current version, you need to modify the code, unless there's an option to turn the bugfix off that I haven't seen.

-Dconst= I think should do it :).