linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] parisc: Increase the usage check of kmalloc allocated object a

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:44:38 +0200
From:   Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:     Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
        Li zeming <zeming@...china.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com
Cc:     linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parisc: Increase the usage check of kmalloc allocated
 object a

On 9/14/22 16:25, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022, 11:04:33 CEST schrieb Helge Deller:
>> On 9/14/22 08:43, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022, 08:18:19 CEST schrieb Helge Deller:
>>>> On 9/14/22 08:04, Li zeming wrote:
>
>> Yes, your proposal is good.
>> Anyone want to send a patch (with a small comment that kcalloc() will return
>> at least the required 8-byte alignment)?
>
> Done.
>
>>> And these functions end up propagating an allocation error in this file
>>> and it will never reach kernel/setup.c, which seems bad.
>>
>> That part I don't understand.
>> The return value of iosapic_alloc_irt() is checked afterwards, but you
>> probably meant something else?
>>
>>> But I guess the only point where this really can go wrong if the PDC
>>> returns an absurdly large number of entries.
>
> What I meant was that if iosapic_alloc_irt() fails, then iosapic_load_irt()
> will return 0, which can either be "nothing to do" or "error". iosapic_init()
> is void, so even if it could detect the failure, it can't report it upwards to
> parisc_init(). Which is the same for basically all other *_init() calls in
> there.

Ok, I see.
Not sure if that needs fixing. If the allocation fails we will be in trouble anyway :-)

Helge