linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2nd 1/4] ramoops: Add __ramoops_init

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: <5ecf32e0-2ef0-12b8-d259-0f1663f03d57@android.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:05:19 -0800
From:   Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>
To:     岩松信洋 / IWAMATSU，NOBUHIRO 
        <nobuhiro.iwamatsu.kw@...achi.com>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        阿口誠司 / AGUCHI，SEIJI 
        <seiji.aguchi.tr@...achi.com>, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2nd 1/4] ramoops: Add __ramoops_init_prz() as generic
 function

On 02/07/2017 12:51 AM, 岩松信洋 / IWAMATSU，NOBUHIRO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Salyzyn [mailto:salyzyn@...roid.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 7:13 AM
>> To: 岩松信洋 / IWAMATSU，NOBUHIRO; Anton Vorontsov; Colin Cross; Kees Cook;
>> Tony Luck
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Hiraku Toyooka; 阿口誠司 / AGUCHI，
>> SEIJI; Shuah Khan
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2nd 1/4] ramoops: Add __ramoops_init_prz() as generic
>> function
>>
>> On 01/30/2017 05:58 PM, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>>> +
>>> +	if (zap && *paddr + sz - cxt->phys_addr > cxt->size) {
>>> +		dev_err(dev, "no room for %s mem region (0x%zx@...llx) in
>> (0x%lx@...llx)\n",
>>> +			name, sz, (unsigned long long)*paddr,
>>> +			cxt->size, (unsigned long long)cxt->phys_addr);
>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>> Why not allow this limit check for ramoops_init_prsz call?
>>
> This code is controlled by flag of zap.
> If zap is false, __ramoops_init_prz() is worked same as original ramoops_init_przs().
>
> Best regards,
>    Nobuhiro

I agree, preserve functionality as is. Please consider removing the need  
for zap && in a future patch, as I _believe_ (untested, and no deep  
dive) that the limit check is relevant for the zap is false path as well  
and may have been an oversight.

-- Mark