linux-hardening - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] slab: Allow for type introspection during allocation

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]

Message-ID: <202407091327.AEF6C020D@keescook>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:28:48 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.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>,
	"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] slab: Allow for type introspection during
 allocation

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:26:32AM -0700, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > 
> >            obj = kmalloc(obj, gfp);
> 
> Could we avoid repeating "obj" in this pattern?
> 
> F.e.
> 
> 	KMALLOC(obj, gfp);

This appears to be the common feedback, which is good! :) And we can
still have it return "obj" as well, so it could still be used in
"return" statements, etc. I will work up a new RFC...

-- 
Kees Cook