linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: support sizes greater than an unsigned long

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: <557A8FF5.10709@freescale.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:53:25 +0300
From:	Cristian Stoica <cristian.stoica@...escale.com>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
CC:	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<horia.geanta@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: support sizes greater than an unsigned long

On 06/12/2015 12:27 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> Dropping the upper bits of the size harms the ability to detect error 
> scenarios where unmappably large -- but not power-of-two -- regions 
> are requested to be mapped.
> 
> However, this patch doesn't fix that.  It just postpones the loss of 
> the upper 32 bits until __ioremap_caller() calls get_vm_area_caller().
>
> There's also no error checking at all for the size of ioremap() done 
> during early boot (!slab_is_available()).

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have a another look at the code.

> Don't just blindly turn static analyzer reports into patches -- and 
> why didn't the analyzer complain about the call to 
> get_vm_area_caller() after this patch?

The analysis that lead to this patch was targeted to a specific driver - in hindsight this is probably not the best
approach.

Cristian S.
--
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/