[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:05:51 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
kristen Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try_addr function
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 03:35 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> 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
--
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.
