linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] print_worker_info: Handle pointer with more care

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <520E5F69.8080207@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:20:41 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] print_worker_info: Handle pointer with more care

Am 16.08.2013 18:53, schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>> Yeah, and that should be fine.  &pwq->wq would be just an offset of wq
> 
> Yep. Now my brain also parsed the C notation correctly.
> Sorry for the completely wrong patch.
> 
>> from NULL which is an invalid pointer but probe_kernel_read() should
>> be able to handle that and probably just return 0 or -1 (all bits
>> set).  I *think* what's necessary is making probe_kernel_read() use
>> mincore() to fine out whether the requested address is mapped (it
>> should return -EFAULT if not) and try to dereference the address iff
>> it's mapped.
> 
> UML needs a custom probe_kernel_read()? Fine. :)

With my own probe_kernel_read() that uses mincore()
it works fine so far. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

--
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/