linux-kernel - RE: Adjusting further size determinations?

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.2.20.1710181531130.15834@hadrien>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:32:00 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc:     'SF Markus Elfring' <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: Adjusting further size determinations?



On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, David Laight wrote:

> From: SF Markus Elfring
> > >>>> Unpleasant consequences are possible in both cases.
> > >> How much do you care to reduce the failure probability further?
> > >
> > > Zero.
> >
> > I am interested to improve the software situation a bit more here.
>
> There are probably better places to spend your time!
>
> If you want 'security' for kmalloc() then:
>
> #define KMALLOC_TYPE(flags) (type *)kmalloc(sizeof (type), flags)
> #define KMALLOC(ptr, flags) *(ptr) = KMALLOC_TYPE(typeof *(ptr), flags)
>
> and change:
> 	ptr = kmalloc(sizeof *ptr, flags);
> to:
> 	KMALLOC(&ptr, flags);
>
> But it is all churn for churn's sake.

Please don't.  Coccinelle won't find real problems with kmalloc any more
if this is done.

julia