linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: Remove ZERO_SIZE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:59:49 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	cl@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: Remove ZERO_SIZE_PTR.

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
> > Everybody should check for ptr != NULL, and most callers are actually checking
> > for ptr != NULL. But nobody is checking for ptr != ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
> 
> That is so intentionally because some kernel subsystem can do a zero size
> allocation.
> 
So, not only users *can* do zero size allocation,
but also there *are* users who are intentionally doing zero size allocation.
Then, we can't remove ZERO_SIZE_PTR.

> > Yes, this is the fault of caller. But ZERO_SIZE_PTR is too small value to
> > distinguish "NULL pointer dereference" and "ZERO_SIZE_PTR dereference" because
> > address printed by oops message can easily exceed ZERO_SIZE_PTR when
> > "struct foo" is large.
> 
> Correct.

Maybe PAGE_SIZE / 2 is better than 16?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/