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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAHViUT11yTKKMhuGckX33RzoonUkFfijVpUXTYZgRhbjKfxbMA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:50:23 +0800 From: Lucien Wang <lcnwed@...il.com> To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org, Wang Yibo <wangyibo@...ontech.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move bad zone checking before getting it On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 6:22 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote: > > On 05.09.24 11:52, Wang Yibo wrote: > > When flags from gfp_zone() has an error combination, VM_BUG_ON() should firt know it before use it. > > s/firt/first/ > > Please break long lines. (checkpatch.pl should have warned you) I will change it. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Yibo <wangyibo@...ontech.com> > > --- > > include/linux/gfp.h | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > > index f53f76e0b17e..ca61b2440ab3 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > > @@ -133,10 +133,11 @@ static inline enum zone_type gfp_zone(gfp_t flags) > > { > > enum zone_type z; > > int bit = (__force int) (flags & GFP_ZONEMASK); > > + VM_BUG_ON((GFP_ZONE_BAD >> bit) & 1); > > Better use VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() instead while at it. Although I do not know what results BAD ZONE flags combinations will cause, I think maybe a BUG is necessary for security ? > > > > > z = (GFP_ZONE_TABLE >> (bit * GFP_ZONES_SHIFT)) & > > ((1 << GFP_ZONES_SHIFT) - 1); > > - VM_BUG_ON((GFP_ZONE_BAD >> bit) & 1); > > + > > Unrelated whitespace change. I will change it. > > > return z; > > } > > > > But I don't see why we would want this change? It's not like the kernel > would crash when calculating z. > > Or is there some change in behavior I am missing? I just think flags checking should precede using it logically, when I review these partial codes. So I submit this patch, there is no other reason. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists