[<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
 
