[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0b69045-f6c4-0290-1c59-4dd75b05ee25@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:36:28 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
cl@...ux.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org, labbott@...hat.com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: security: introduce the init_allocations=1 boot
option
On 4/18/19 8:42 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> +static void poison_dont(struct kmem_cache *c, void *object)
> +{
> + /* Do nothing. Use for caches with constructors. */
> +}
> +
> static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
> unsigned int object_size, unsigned int align,
> slab_flags_t flags, unsigned int useroffset,
> @@ -381,6 +391,10 @@ static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
> s->size = s->object_size = object_size;
> s->align = align;
> s->ctor = ctor;
> + if (ctor)
> + s->poison_fn = poison_dont;
> + else
> + s->poison_fn = poison_zero;
> s->useroffset = useroffset;
> s->usersize = usersize;
>
> @@ -974,6 +988,7 @@ void __init create_boot_cache(struct kmem_cache *s, const char *name,
> s->align = calculate_alignment(flags, ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN, size);
> s->useroffset = useroffset;
> s->usersize = usersize;
> + s->poison_fn = poison_zero;
An empty indirect call is probably a pretty bad idea on systems with
retpoline. Isn't this just a bool anyway for either calling poison_dont
or poison_zero? Can it call anything else?
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.
