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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:54:22 +0000 From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: hide more compat_vdso code On 10/29/20 1:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:55 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:03:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> >>> >>> When CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO is disabled, we get a warning >>> about a potential out-of-bounds access: >>> >>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c: In function 'aarch32_vdso_mremap': >>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c:86:37: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of 'struct vdso_abi_info[1]' [-Warray-bounds] >>> 86 | unsigned long vdso_size = vdso_info[abi].vdso_code_end - >>> | ~~~~~~~~~^~~~~ >>> >>> This is all in dead code however that the compiler is unable to >>> eliminate by itself. >>> >>> Change the array to individual local variables that can be >>> dropped in dead code elimination to let the compiler understand >>> this better. >>> >>> Fixes: 0cbc2659123e ("arm64: vdso32: Remove a bunch of #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO guards") >>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> >> >> This looks like a nice cleanup to me! I agree we don't need the array >> here. >> >> Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> > > Thanks! > > I see the patch now conflicts with "mm: forbid splitting special mappings" > in -mm, by Dmitry Safonov. I have rebased my patch on top, should > I send it to Andrew for inclusion in -mm then? Makes sense to me. I plan to add some more patches on top that will make tracking of user landing (on vdso/sigpage/etc) common between architectures in generic code. So, I think it's probably good idea to keep it in one place, -mm tree seems like a proper place for it. Thanks, Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists