[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:23:47 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
>>
>> We all know the perils of multiplying a value provided from userspace
>> by a constant and then allocating the resulting number of bytes. That's
>> why we have kvmalloc_array(), so we don't have to think about it.
>> This solves the same problem when we embed one of these arrays in a
>> struct like this:
>>
>> struct {
>> int n;
>> unsigned long array[];
>> };
>
> I think expanding the number of allocation functions
> is not necessary.
I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected
allocation functions makes sense.
-Kees
--
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.
