[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1120e8fd-2f48-5b1f-7072-9bd8e2b82fbf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 09:05:00 -0800
From: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, david@...morbit.com,
willy@...radead.org, keescook@...omium.org, mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: labbott@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] lkdtm: crash on overwriting protected pmalloc var
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROTECTABLE_MEMORY
> +void lkdtm_WRITE_RO_PMALLOC(void)
> +{
> + struct gen_pool *pool;
> + int *i;
> +
> + pool = pmalloc_create_pool("pool", 0);
> + if (unlikely(!pool)) {
> + pr_info("Failed preparing pool for pmalloc test.");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + i = (int *)pmalloc(pool, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (unlikely(!i)) {
> + pr_info("Failed allocating memory for pmalloc test.");
> + pmalloc_destroy_pool(pool);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + *i = INT_MAX;
> + pmalloc_protect_pool(pool);
> +
> + pr_info("attempting bad pmalloc write at %p\n", i);
> + *i = 0;
Seems harmless, but I don't get why *i local variable needs to be set to
0 at the end of this function.
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
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.
