linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 9/26] 9: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.

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:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:15:11 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 9/26]  9: uprobes: mmap and fork
 hooks.

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-04-18 18:29:23]:

> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:04 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +               if (vaddr > ULONG_MAX)
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * We cannot have a virtual address that is
> > +                        * greater than ULONG_MAX
> > +                        */
> > +                       continue; 
> 
> I'm having trouble with those checks.. while they're not wrong they're
> not correct either. Mostly the top address space is where the kernel
> lives and on 32-on-64 compat the boundary is much lower still. Ideally
> it'd be TASK_SIZE, but that doesn't work since it assumes you're testing
> for the current task.
> 

Guess I can use TASK_SIZE_OF(tsk) instead of ULONG_MAX ?
I think TASK_SIZE_OF handles 32-on-64 correctly.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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/