linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Assorted improvements to usercopy

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:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:27:42 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Assorted improvements to usercopy

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 07:18:57PM +0000, William Kucharski wrote:
> I like these, but a quick question:
> 
> Since the usercopy_abort() calls are all because the offset exceeds the page
> size, is there a reason why you don't specifically state that via the detail
> parameter rather than just supply a NULL pointer?

Hmm ... I'd defer to Kees on this, because I'm not familiar with
usercopy_abort() usage, but the only places which use the detail
parameter today are slab/slub, which use it to pass the name of
the slab.  I think the user is supposed to infer that we overran the
end of the page based on the offset & length values.

> Otherwise for the patch series:
> 
> Reviewed-by: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>

Thanks!