linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Sanitize __get_vm

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:   Sat, 4 Apr 2020 23:25:45 -0600
From:   William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jroedel@...e.de,
        vbabka@...e.cz, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Sanitize __get_vm_area() arguments



> On Apr 4, 2020, at 12:52 PM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Is there any need to similarly sanitize “size” to assure start + size doesn’t go past “end?”
>> 
> Why is that double check needed if all such tests are done deeper on stack?

If such tests ARE performed, then it doesn't matter to me whether it is checked before or after,
it just seems that nothing checks whether start + size makes some sort of sense with respect
to end.

I admit I didn't walk through all the routines to see if such a check would be superfluous.