Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:23:47 -0800
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Joe Perches <>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <>, Andrew Morton <>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <>, Linux-MM <>, 
	LKML <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> From: Matthew Wilcox <>
>> 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 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.