[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd3211fd-5b3c-c1f2-c126-e96844b16c22@suse.cz>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 17:50:24 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Make ksize() a reporting-only function
On 11/18/22 18:11, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:32:36AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 11/18/22 04:56, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > With all "silently resizing" callers of ksize() refactored, remove the
>>
>> At cursory look seems it's true now in -next (but not mainline?) can you
>> confirm?
>
> Almost, yes. I realized there is 1 case in the BPF verifier that
> remains. (I thought it was picked up, but only a prereq patch was.) I'm
> going to resend that one today, but I would expect it to be picked
> up soon. (But, yes, definitely not for mainline.)
>
>> That would probably be safe enough to have slab.git expose this to -next now
>> and time a PR appropriately in the next merge window?
>
> Possibly. I suspect syzkaller might trip KASAN on any larger BPF tests
> until I get the last one landed. And if you don't want to do the timing
> of the PR, I can carry this patch in my hardening tree, since I already
> have to do a two-part early/late-merge-window PR there.
OK I'm fine with you doing that, there's my ack already, hopefully Andrey is
now also happy :)
Vlastimil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists