[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:27:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/31] usercopy: Mark kmalloc caches as usercopy
caches
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Kees Cook wrote:
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1291,7 +1291,8 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
> */
> kmalloc_caches[INDEX_NODE] = create_kmalloc_cache(
> kmalloc_info[INDEX_NODE].name,
> - kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE), ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS);
> + kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE), ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS,
> + 0, kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE));
> slab_state = PARTIAL_NODE;
> setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table();
Ok this presumes that at some point we will be able to restrict the number
of bytes writeable and thus set the offset and size field to different
values. Is that realistic?
We already whitelist all kmalloc caches (see first patch).
So what is the point of this patch?
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.
