linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: Remove use of VLAs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e63f261b-9ef3-5750-20df-555291a8a0d8@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:16:41 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: Remove use of VLAs

On 16/04/18 15:27, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 06:11 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> There's an ongoing effort to remove VLAs[1] from the kernel to eventually
>> turn on -Wvla. The few VLAs in use have an upper bound based on a size
>> of 64K. This doesn't produce an excessively large stack so just switch
>> the upper bound.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c | 6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> index c36d23aa6c35..d96a5a535cbb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> @@ -421,8 +421,7 @@ static void xen_load_gdt(const struct desc_ptr *dtr)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long va = dtr->address;
>>  	unsigned int size = dtr->size + 1;
>> -	unsigned pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE);
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't dtr->size always either GDT_SIZE or 0?

GDT_SIZE - 1 :-)

>> -	unsigned long frames[pages];
>> +	unsigned long frames[DIV_ROUND_UP(SZ_64K, PAGE_SIZE)];

So we could just go with one frame and modify the BUG_ON() further below
accordingly.


Juergen