|
Message-ID: <4ad99a55-9c93-5ea1-5954-3cb6e5ba7df9@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:29:04 +0200 From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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 2018-04-30 22:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> 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); >> } > > Ooh, if neither a nor b is constant, it just didn't do a check ;-( This > stuff is hard. > >> (I just wish C had a sensible way to catch overflow...) > > Every CPU I ever worked with had an "overflow" bit ... do we have a > friend on the C standards ctte who might figure out a way to let us > write code that checks it? gcc 5.1+ (I think) have the __builtin_OP_overflow checks that should generate reasonable code. Too bad there's no completely generic check_all_ops_in_this_expression(a+b*c+d/e, or_jump_here). Though it's hard to define what they should be checked against - probably would require all subexpressions (including the variables themselves) to have the same type. plug: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/19/358 Rasmus
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.