linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a05wLCy0GT88mc451h3uXuU86aZ7XC=YXYXi12J0dFJkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 12:28:49 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Yan Yankovskyi <yyankovskyi@...il.com>, Wei Liu <wl@....org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:12 AM Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On 05.05.20 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:02 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> >> On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does
> >>> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the
> >>> patch that way.
> >>
> >> Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to
> >> extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the
> >> map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it
> >> dynamically instead of having it on the stack.
> >>
> >> Would you be fine doing this?
> >
> > This is a little more complex than I'd want to do without doing any testing
> > (and no, I don't want to do the testing either) ;-)
> >
> > It does sound like a better approach though.
>
> I take this as you are fine with me writing the patch and adding you as
> "Reported-by:"?

Yes, definitely. Thanks!

     Arnd