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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:23:47 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected
allocation functions makes sense.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security