linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/gup_benchmark: Time put

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, 10 Oct 2018 15:41:11 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/gup_benchmark: Time put_page

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:28:43 -0600 Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> wrote:

> > >  struct gup_benchmark {
> > > -	__u64 delta_usec;
> > > +	__u64 get_delta_usec;
> > > +	__u64 put_delta_usec;
> > >  	__u64 addr;
> > >  	__u64 size;
> > >  	__u32 nr_pages_per_call;
> > 
> > If we move put_delta_usec to the end of this struct, the ABI remains
> > back-compatible?
> 
> If the kernel writes to a new value appended to the end of the struct,
> and the application allocated the older sized struct, wouldn't that
> corrupt the user memory?

Looks like it.  How about we do this while we're breaking it?

--- a/mm/gup_benchmark.c~mm-gup_benchmark-time-put_page-fix
+++ a/mm/gup_benchmark.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ struct gup_benchmark {
 	__u64 size;
 	__u32 nr_pages_per_call;
 	__u32 flags;
+	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
 };
 
 static int __gup_benchmark_ioctl(unsigned int cmd,