[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1518636765.3678.19.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:32:45 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel
Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array
On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> > >
> > > We all know the perils of multiplying a value provided from userspace
> > > by a constant and then allocating the resulting number of bytes. That's
> > > why we have kvmalloc_array(), so we don't have to think about it.
> > > This solves the same problem when we embed one of these arrays in a
> > > struct like this:
> > >
> > > struct {
> > > int n;
> > > unsigned long array[];
> > > };
> >
> > I think expanding the number of allocation functions
> > is not necessary.
>
> I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected
> allocation functions makes sense.
Function symmetry matters too.
These allocation functions are specific to kvz<foo>
and are not symmetric for k<foo>, v<foo>, devm_<foo>
<foo>_node, and the like.
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.
