[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8F83835C-366C-46AC-A50A-3F680B7D2D83@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:30:52 -0500
From: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] slab: introduce kmalloc_array
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We could also catch these issues with BUG() or WARN_ON() and then return
> zero.
You cannot have SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE return 0 when an integer overflow
occurs.
1) kmalloc(0) has a different semantics.
2) Using kmalloc(0) allows DoS attacks because often after kmalloc()
there is some initialization code that writes to the allocated
memory, such as:
p = kmalloc(SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE(n, size), ...);
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
p[i] = ...;
Besides, BUG() still allows DoS attacks and WARN_ON() would flood
the log, especially if n is controlled from user space. Neither
seems appropriate here.
- xi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists