[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k1yajinf.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:41:08 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: js1304@...il.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] vchecker: introduce the valid access checker
js1304@...il.com writes:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Looks useful. Essentially unlimited hardware break points, combined
with slab.
Didn't do a full review, but noticed some things below.
> +
> + buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!buf)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(buf, ubuf, cnt)) {
> + kfree(buf);
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + if (isspace(buf[0]))
> + remove = true;
and that may be uninitialized.
and the space changes the operation? That's a strange syntax.
> + buf[cnt - 1] = '\0';
That's an underflow of one byte if cnt is 0.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists