linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode

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: <06089643-a36b-93b2-1d26-0336c4d0583c@ce.jp.nec.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2017 23:52:07 +0000
From:   Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct
 ucode_patch

On 01/06/17 02:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> We allocate struct ucode_patch here.
>>
>> "size" is a size of microcode data and used for kmemdup() later
>> in this function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
>> Fixes: 06b8534cb728 ("x86/microcode: Rework microcode loading")
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>> index aee3cb5..042f329 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
>>  {
>>         struct ucode_patch *p;
>>
>> -       p = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Perhaps sizeof(*p) ?

Yeah, that might be preferred.

>>         if (!p)
>>                 return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

-- 
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation / NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd.