linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] random: Simplify API for random address requests

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: <878twfonbi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:	Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:35:13 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	"Roberts\, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
	Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening\@lists.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	"benh\@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
	Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Cashman <dcashman@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] random: Simplify API for random address requests

Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:47:59PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I have no new call sites in mind, but it seems safe to add a BUG_ON to
>> verify we don't gain callers that don't follow the correct
>> expectations. (Or maybe WARN and return start.)
>
> No, I think BUG_ON is appropriate.  afaict, the only time this will be
> encountered is during the development process.

Unless it's not.

Why crash someone's system when you could just page align the value
you're given?

cheers