linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] introduce probe_slab

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: <20141028195542.GA1352@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:55:42 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] introduce probe_slab_address()

On 10/28, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> Yes, probe_kernel_read() is in [1/3], but it's not the same as
> __probe_kernel_read() for blackfin, for example.
>
> It's defined as
>
> long __weak probe_kernel_read(void *dst, const void *src, size_t size)
>     __attribute__((alias("__probe_kernel_read")));
>
> But blackfin's probe_kernel_read() redefines this __weak function,
> isn't it? Didn't get_freepointer_safe() use to call architecture's
> probe_kernel_read() before?

I _think_ that __probe_kernel_read(slab_ddr) should be fine.

Yes, an architecture may want to reimplement probe_kernel_read() to
allow to safely access the special areas, or special addresses.

But again, in this case we know that this address points to the
"normal" kernel memory, __copy_from_user_inatomic() should work fine.

Oleg.

--
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/