Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:05:51 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Randy Dunlap <>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, 
	Ingo Molnar <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>, X86 ML <>, 
	LKML <>, Linux-MM <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>, 
	kristen Accardi <>, Dave Hansen <>, 
	"Van De Ven, Arjan" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try_addr function

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Randy Dunlap <> wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 03:35 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Randy Dunlap <> wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2018 03:09 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
>>>> +void *__vmalloc_node_try_addr(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
>>>> +                     gfp_t gfp_mask, pgprot_t prot, unsigned long vm_flags,
>>>> +                     int node, const void *caller)
>>>> +{
>>> so this isn't optional, eh?  You are going to force it on people because?
>> RANDOMIZE_BASE isn't optional either. :) This improves the module
>> address entropy with (what seems to be) no down-side, so yeah, I think
>> it should be non-optional. :)
> In what kernel tree is RANDOMIZE_BASE not optional?

Oh, sorry, I misspoke: on by default. It _is_ possible to turn it off.

But patch #2 does check for RANDOMIZE_BASE, so it should work as expected, yes?

Or did you want even this helper function to be compiled out without it?


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.