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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709211024120.14427@nuc-kabylake>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:27:13 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/31] usercopy: Mark kmalloc caches as usercopy
 caches

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Kees Cook wrote:

> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1291,7 +1291,8 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
>  	 */
>  	kmalloc_caches[INDEX_NODE] = create_kmalloc_cache(
>  				kmalloc_info[INDEX_NODE].name,
> -				kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE), ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS);
> +				kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE), ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS,
> +				0, kmalloc_size(INDEX_NODE));
>  	slab_state = PARTIAL_NODE;
>  	setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table();

Ok this presumes that at some point we will be able to restrict the number
of bytes writeable and thus set the offset and size field to different
values. Is that realistic?

We already whitelist all kmalloc caches (see first patch).

So what is the point of this patch?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ