[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15bd0d05-e046-1b35-9f14-91e507e6b162@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:35:58 -0300
From: João Moreira <jmoreira@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/crypto: camellia: Fix function prototypes
>
>> +static inline void camellia_enc_blk(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src)
>> {
>> - __camellia_enc_blk(ctx, dst, src, false);
>> + __camellia_enc_blk((struct camellia_ctx *) ctx, dst, src, false);
>> }
>
> I don't see how this is an improvement: instead of having a proper type there's
> now an opaque type and an ugly (and dangerous) type cast.
>
> What does "compatible with CFI requirements" mean?
For "compatible with CFI requirements", I meant: given a set of
functions that are invoked through a given set of pointers, all
functions and pointers in these sets have the same prototype. I added a
note about this CFI heuristic in the cover letter, but I guess I should
have been clearer there and added something more substantial to the
commit message.
Regarding the changes, this was the most straight-forward way I found to
make the sources compliant with the above, not requiring deeper semantic
changes to the underneath invoking code. On the other hand, I agree that
there is a collateral damage and that an ideal fix would be the other
way around -- removing the opaque type from the pointer instead of
adding it to the functions.
I'll try to think of another way and send if I come to something.
Tks,
João.
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.
