[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YR4frlpfJQonPuKp@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:09:02 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add __alloc_size() for better bounds checking
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:08:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GCC and Clang both use the "alloc_size" attribute to assist with bounds
> checking around the use of allocation functions. Add the attribute,
> adjust the Makefile to silence needless warnings, and add the hints to
> the allocators where possible. These changes have been in use for a
> while now in GrapheneOS.
Can you explain how this attribute helps? Should we flow it through
other allocating functions?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists