> Prepare to mark sensitive kernel structures for randomization by making
> sure they're using designated initializers. These were identified during
> allyesconfig builds of x86, arm, and arm64, with most initializer fixes
> extracted from grsecurity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index 722160784f83..f815827532dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> int added = (mode == LCK_NL);
> int overlaps = 0;
> int splitted = 0;
> - const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { NULL };
> + const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { };
>
> CDEBUG(D_DLMTRACE,
> "flags %#llx owner %llu pid %u mode %u start %llu end %llu\n",
Nak. Filling null_cbs with random data is a bad idea. If you look at
ldlm_lock_create() where this is used you have
if (cbs) {
lock->l_blocking_ast = cbs->lcs_blocking;
lock->l_completion_ast = cbs->lcs_completion;
lock->l_glimpse_ast = cbs->lcs_glimpse;
}
Having lock->l_* point to random addresses is a bad idea.
What really needs to be done is proper initialization of that
structure. A bunch of patches will be coming to address this.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
