[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202002251035.AD29F84@keescook>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:35:56 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] [RFC] mm: annotate memory allocation functions with
their sizes
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:38:22PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> There are some uses of ksize in the kernel making use of the real
> usable size of memory allocations rather than only the requested
> amount. It's incorrect when mixed with alloc_size markers, since if a
> number like 14 is passed that's used as the upper bound, rather than a
> rounded size like 16 returned by ksize. It's unlikely to trigger any
> issues with only CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, but it becomes more likely
> with -fsanitize=object-size or other library-based usage of
> __builtin_object_size.
I think the solution here is to use a macro that does the per-bucket
rounding and applies them to the attributes. Keep the bucket size lists
in sync will likely need some BUILD_BUG_ON()s or similar.
--
Kees Cook
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.
