linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kasan: Extend KASAN mode kernel parameter

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:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 13:35:15 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kasan: Extend KASAN mode kernel parameter

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:22PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
[...]
>  DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(kasan_flag_stacktrace);
>  extern bool kasan_flag_async __ro_after_init;
> +extern bool kasan_flag_asymm __ro_after_init;
>  
>  static inline bool kasan_stack_collection_enabled(void)
>  {
>  	return static_branch_unlikely(&kasan_flag_stacktrace);
>  }
>  
> -static inline bool kasan_async_mode_enabled(void)
> +static inline bool kasan_async_fault_possible(void)
>  {
> -	return kasan_flag_async;
> +	return kasan_flag_async | kasan_flag_asymm;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool kasan_sync_fault_possible(void)
> +{
> +	return !kasan_flag_async | kasan_flag_asymm;
>  }

Is the choice of bit-wise OR a typo? Because this should probably have
been logical OR. In this case, functionally it shouldn't matter, but is
unusual style.