[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+N9tt4rxaUMxoZnE-ziqU_yu-jkt-cBZ=R8wmYq6XBTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:02:14 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, 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>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Did this ever happen?
>
> Not yet. I brought it up at LSFMM, and I'll repost the patches soon.
>
>> I'd also like to see kmalloc_array_3d() or
>> something that takes three size arguments. We have a lot of this
>> pattern too:
>>
>> kmalloc(sizeof(foo) * A * B, gfp...)
>>
>> And we could turn that into:
>>
>> kmalloc_array_3d(sizeof(foo), A, B, gfp...)
>
> Are either of A or B constant? Because if so, we could just use
> kmalloc_array. If not, then kmalloc_array_3d becomes a little more
> expensive than kmalloc_array because we have to do a divide at runtime
> instead of compile-time. that's still better than allocating too few
> bytes, of course.
Yeah, getting the order of the division is nice. Some thoughts below...
>
> I'm wondering how far down the abc + ab + ac + bc + d rabbit-hole we're
> going to end up going. As far as we have to, I guess.
Well, the common patterns I've seen so far are:
a
ab
abc
a + bc
ab + cd
For any longer multiplications, I've only found[1]:
drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c: void **a =
kzalloc(h * sizeof(void *) + h * w * size, GFP_KERNEL);
At the end of the day, though, I don't really like having all these
different names...
kmalloc(), kmalloc_array(), kmalloc_ab_c(), kmalloc_array_3d()
with their "matching" zeroing function:
kzalloc(), kcalloc(), kzalloc_ab_c(), kmalloc_array_3d(..., gfp | __GFP_ZERO)
For the multiplication cases, I wonder if we could just have:
kmalloc_multN(gfp, a, b, c, ...)
kzalloc_multN(gfp, a, b, c, ...)
and we can replace all kcalloc() users with kzalloc_mult2(), all
kmalloc_array() users with kmalloc_mult2(), the abc uses with
kmalloc_mult3().
That said, I *do* like kmalloc_struct() as it's a very common pattern...
Or maybe, just leave the pattern in the name? kmalloc_ab(),
kmalloc_abc(), kmalloc_ab_c(), kmalloc_ab_cd() ?
Getting the constant ordering right could be part of the macro
definition, maybe? i.e.:
static inline void *kmalloc_ab(size_t a, size_t b, gfp_t flags)
{
if (__builtin_constant_p(a) && a != 0 && \
b > SIZE_MAX / a)
return NULL;
else if (__builtin_constant_p(b) && b != 0 && \
a > SIZE_MAX / b)
return NULL;
return kmalloc(a * b, flags);
}
(I just wish C had a sensible way to catch overflow...)
-Kees
[1] git grep -E 'alloc\([^,]+[^(]\*[^)][^,]+[^(]\*[^)][^,]+[^(]\*[^)][^,]+,'
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
