[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:40:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: elena.reshetova@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, h.peter.anvin@...el.com,
will.deacon@....com, dwindsor@...il.com,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] refcount: Report failures through
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 03:26:52PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> This converts from WARN_ON() to CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() in the
> CONFIG_DEBUG_REFCOUNT case. Additionally moves refcount_t sanity check
> conditionals into regular function flow. Since CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION()
> is marked __much_check, we override few cases where the failure has
> already been handled but we want to explicitly report it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> include/linux/refcount.h | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/refcount.h b/include/linux/refcount.h
> index 5b89cad62237..ef32910c7dd8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/refcount.h
> +++ b/include/linux/refcount.h
> @@ -43,10 +43,10 @@
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>
> #if CONFIG_DEBUG_REFCOUNT
> -#define REFCOUNT_WARN(cond, str) WARN_ON(cond)
> +#define REFCOUNT_CHECK(cond, str) CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(cond, str)
OK, so that goes back to a full WARN() which will make the generated
code gigantic due to the whole printk() trainwreck :/
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.
