linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF

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: <CABqD9hYQPxdOUVhqMOskYAZmXiiF-i80jd5wb0Wyv-6tNYMzBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:16:28 -0500
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
	eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
	scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
	coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:00 -0500
> Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> >> I think this gives userspace an easy way of causing page allocation
>> >> failure warnings, by permitting large kmalloc() attempts. __Add
>> >> __GFP_NOWARN?
>> >
>> > Max is 32kb. sk_attach_filter() in net/core/filter.c is worse,
>> > it allocates up to 512kb before even checking the length.
>> >
>> > What about using GFP_USER (and adding __GFP_NOWARN to GFP_USER) instead?
>>
>> It looks like GFP_USER|__GFP_NOWARN would make sense here.  I'll change it.
>
> I'm not really sure why GFP_USER exists.  It's very rarely used, and
> most usages are probably inappropriate.  To me it means "same as
> GFP_HIGHUSER, only don't use highmem".  That's relevant to blockdev
> pagecache and nothing else as far as I can tell.  And good luck working
> out what the __GFP_HARDWALL does ;)

I was wildly speculating about it, but maybe I should stop doing that.

> This is a regular old allocation of kernel memory - the thing to use
> here is GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN.

Sounds good - I've just changed the patchset to that effect.

> (I'm surprised that we didn't remove __GFP_NOWARN ages ago - warning by
> default is pretty obnoxious.  But the warning continues to be
> occasionally useful and false positives are rare).
>
--
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/