[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709211102320.14742@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:04:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 03/31] usercopy: Mark kmalloc
caches as usercopy caches
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Kees Cook wrote:
> > So what is the point of this patch?
>
> The DMA kmalloc caches are not whitelisted:
The DMA kmalloc caches are pretty obsolete and mostly there for obscure
drivers.
??
> >> kmalloc_dma_caches[i] = create_kmalloc_cache(n,
> >> - size, SLAB_CACHE_DMA | flags);
> >> + size, SLAB_CACHE_DMA | flags, 0, 0);
>
> So this is creating the distinction between the kmallocs that go to
> userspace and those that don't. The expectation is that future work
> can start to distinguish between "for userspace" and "only kernel"
> kmalloc allocations, as is already done here for DMA.
The creation of the kmalloc caches in earlier patches already setup the
"whitelisting". Why do it twice?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
