linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/pti: constify address parameters

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:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 07:37:55 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@....com.cn>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, albcamus@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/pti: constify address parameters

On 07/15/2018 09:03 PM, Jiang Biao wrote:
> -static p4d_t *pti_user_pagetable_walk_p4d(unsigned long address)
> +static p4d_t *pti_user_pagetable_walk_p4d(const unsigned long address)
>  {
>  	pgd_t *pgd = kernel_to_user_pgdp(pgd_offset_k(address));
>  	gfp_t gfp = (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK | __GFP_ZERO);

I'm also a bit ambivalent on this one.  While this is _correct_ and not
something I think we actively discourage, it's not something that we're
horribly diligent about doing universally in the kernel.