linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] kasan: add and integrate kasan boot 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:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 20:51:52 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] kasan: add and integrate kasan boot parameters

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:29 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/jump_label.h>
>
> This should include <linux/static_key.h> -- although the rest of the
> kernel seems to also inconsistently use on or the other. Since the name,
> as referred to also by macros are "static keys", perhaps the
> static_key.h header is more appropriate...

Will fix.

> > +enum kasan_arg_stacktrace {
> > +     KASAN_ARG_STACKTRACE_DEFAULT,
>
> It seems KASAN_ARG_STACKTRACE_DEFAULT is never used explicitly. Could
> the switch statements just be changed to not have a 'default' but
> instead refer to *DEFAULT where appropriate?

We need to either cover all cases explicitly, or use default in each
switch, otherwise there's a warning. I guess covering everything
explicitly is a better approach, in case more values are added in the
future, as we'll get warnings for those if they aren't covered in
switches. Will do.