linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks

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:	Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:41 -0500
From:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 09:28 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > I'm on Christoph's side here.  I don't think it makes sense for any code
> > to ask to allocate zero bytes of memory and expect valid memory to be
> > returned.
> >   
> 
> Yes, everyone agrees on that.  If you do kmalloc(0), its never OK to
> dereference the result.  The question is whether kmalloc(0) should complain.

Yeah, I see that you aren't necessarily asking for valid memory, just
something that appears valid.  I'm still of the mind that if code is
asking for a zero-length allocation, it's raising a flag that it's not
taking some corner case into account.  But I think I'm just
regurgitating what Christoph is arguing.

> > Would a compromise be to return a pointer to some known invalid region?
> > This way the kmalloc(0) call would appear successful to the caller, but
> > any access to the memory would result in an exception.
> >   
> 
> Yes, that's what Christoph has posted.

Oh.  I went back and re-read the thread and it looks like you proposed
this already.  I don't see where Christoph did, or agreed, but maybe I
missed something.

> I'm slightly concerned about
> kmalloc() returning the same non-NULL address multiple times, but it
> seems sound otherwise.

If the caller is asking for 0 bytes, it shouldn't be doing anything with
the returned address except checking for a NULL return.  But then, it's
hard to predict everything that calling code might be doing, such as
allocating buffers and creating a hash based on their addresses.  Of
course, if there's code that would have a problem with it, I think it's
a further argument that it would be better off avoiding the calling
kmalloc(0) in the first place.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/