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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:44:35 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:, Uladzislau Rezki <>,
        Zorro Lang <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] usercopy: Handle vm_map_ram() areas

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 09:23:15AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 10:32:25PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > vmalloc does not allocate a vm_struct for vm_map_ram() areas.  That causes
> > us to deny usercopies from those areas.  This affects XFS which uses
> > vm_map_ram() for its directories.
> > 
> > Fix this by calling find_vmap_area() instead of find_vm_area().
> Thanks for the fixes!
> > [...]
> > +		/* XXX: We should also abort for free vmap_areas */
> What's needed to detect this?

I'm not entirely sure.  I only just learned of the existence of this
struct ;-)

         * The following two variables can be packed, because
         * a vmap_area object can be either:
         *    1) in "free" tree (root is free_vmap_area_root)
         *    2) or "busy" tree (root is vmap_area_root)
        union {
                unsigned long subtree_max_size; /* in "free" tree */
                struct vm_struct *vm;           /* in "busy" tree */

Hmm.  Actually, we only search vmap_area_root, so I suppose it can't
be a free area.  So this XXX can be removed, as we'll get NULL back
if we've got a pointer to a free area.  Ulad, do I have this right?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists