linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] of: Mark property::value as const

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: <58AF6F87.4040005@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:25:59 -0800
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] of: Mark property::value as const

On 02/23/17 15:08, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 02/13/17 18:50, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> The 'blob' we pass into populate_properties() is marked as const,
>> but we cast that const away when we assign the result of
>> fdt_getprop_by_offset() to pp->value. Let's mark value as const
>> instead, so that code can't mistakenly write to the value of the
>> property that we've so far advertised as const.
> 
> Instead of struct property field value being a pointer into the
> FDT, I would rather copy the data to newly allocated memory and
> have value be a pointer to that memory.  This is required if we
> want to make /sys/firmware/fdt optional, which would allow us to
> free the memory containing the initial boot FDT.
> 
> I also do not want overlay live subtrees to have any pointers
> into the FDT that was used to populate the overlay, so copying
> the data solves that problem also.
> 
> 
>> Unfortunately, this exposes a problem with the fdt resolver code,
>> where we overwrite the value member of properties of phandles to
>> update them with their final value. Add a comment for now to
>> indicate where we're potentially writing over const data.
> 
> Yes, the resolver code needs to adjust phandle values.
> 
> I think I can get rid of the resolver modifying the various phandle
> values, and instead just modify the phandle value in struct
> device_node.  At the same time, I think I can also remove all
> instances of the phandle properties ('linux,phandle', 'ibm,phandle',
> 'phandle') in the live tree.  These properties should not be
> accessed directly by any code outside of the device tree framework
> since the phandle is located in the struct device_node.  A quick
> grep does not show any such accesses of the phandle properties,
> but I want to look more closely.

If I remove the various phandle properties from the live tree,
the one place I can not inspect for impact is the live tree that
is exposed at /proc/device-tree/  I do not know whether that is
a problem or not.

-Frank