linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try

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: <c26266cf-1f90-2688-d131-501dbaf9460a@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:16:42 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        kristen Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try_addr function

On 06/20/2018 04:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2018 03:35 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>> On 06/20/2018 03:09 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
>>>>> +void *__vmalloc_node_try_addr(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
>>>>> +                     gfp_t gfp_mask, pgprot_t prot, unsigned long vm_flags,
>>>>> +                     int node, const void *caller)
>>>>> +{
>>>>
>>>> so this isn't optional, eh?  You are going to force it on people because?
>>>
>>> RANDOMIZE_BASE isn't optional either. :) This improves the module
>>> address entropy with (what seems to be) no down-side, so yeah, I think
>>> it should be non-optional. :)
>>
>> In what kernel tree is RANDOMIZE_BASE not optional?
> 
> Oh, sorry, I misspoke: on by default. It _is_ possible to turn it off.
> 
> But patch #2 does check for RANDOMIZE_BASE, so it should work as expected, yes?
> 
> Or did you want even this helper function to be compiled out without it?

Thanks, I missed it.  :(

Looks fine.

-- 
~Randy