linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc

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: <1518634058.3678.15.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:47:38 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> 
> We all know the perils of multiplying a value provided from userspace
> by a constant and then allocating the resulting number of bytes.  That's
> why we have kvmalloc_array(), so we don't have to think about it.
> This solves the same problem when we embed one of these arrays in a
> struct like this:
> 
> struct {
> 	int n;
> 	unsigned long array[];
> };

I think expanding the number of allocation functions
is not necessary.