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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 19:56:13 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lkdtm/usercopy: Add tests for other memory types On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:36:13AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > +static void lkdtm_USERCOPY_FOLIO(void) > +{ > + struct folio *folio; > + void *addr; > + > + /* > + * FIXME: Folio checking currently misses 0-order allocations, so > + * allocate and bump forward to the last page. > + */ > + folio = folio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 1); > + if (!folio) { > + pr_err("folio_alloc() failed!?\n"); > + return; > + } > + addr = page_address(&folio->page); Ideally, code shouldn't be using &folio->page. If it is, we have a gap in the folio API. Fortunately, we have folio_address(). > + if (addr) { > + do_usercopy_page_span("folio", addr + PAGE_SIZE); > + } > + folio_put(folio); > +} Other than that, this looks sane to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists