[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160428174731.042b7394@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:47:31 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove()
O> For example, this is what I've got currently:
>
> /* Detect and warn about potential overlaps. */
> void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
> {
> if (dest > src && dest - src < n)
> warn("Potentially unsafe overlapping memcpy detected!");
> return __memcpy(dest, src, n);
> }
>
> Does that seem okay? If so, I'll send the patch...
Probably useful for debug, but instead of relying on __memcpy
happening to handle overlaps - which isn't portable you could instead
debug all platforms by doing
if (...) {
warn(...)
memmove()
} else
__memcpy
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists