[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801100921000.7926@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:25:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/36] usercopy: Include offset in overflow report
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> -static void report_usercopy(unsigned long len, bool to_user, const char *type)
> +int report_usercopy(const char *name, const char *detail, bool to_user,
> + unsigned long offset, unsigned long len)
> {
> - pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s '%s' (%lu bytes)\n",
> + pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s %s%s%s%s (offset %lu, size %lu)\n",
> to_user ? "exposure" : "overwrite",
> - to_user ? "from" : "to", type ? : "unknown", len);
> + to_user ? "from" : "to",
> + name ? : "unknown?!",
> + detail ? " '" : "", detail ? : "", detail ? "'" : "",
> + offset, len);
> /*
> * For greater effect, it would be nice to do do_group_exit(),
> * but BUG() actually hooks all the lock-breaking and per-arch
> * Oops code, so that is used here instead.
> */
> BUG();
Should this be a WARN() or so? Or some configuration that changes
BUG() behavior? Otherwise
> +
> + return -1;
This return code will never be returned.
Why a return code at all? Maybe I will see that in the following patches?
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.
