> James,
>
>
> This should be a purely syntactical change, to help out tools - for GCC, I'm pretty sure the meaning of {
> } and { NULL } are the same. Also, I don't think struct randomization does what you're thinking.
Yep. I misread his commit message. That is why it didn't make sense to
me.
> Is there anything written up on kernel struct randomization? I was trying to find a talk/post from you or
> something from LWN, but I couldn't find something about this specifically. (Probably because I can't find
> it among the other stuff that's been written up)
>
>
> - Patrick
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: lustre-devel <lustre-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of James Simmons
> <jsimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:22:58 AM
> To: Kees Cook
> Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Oleg Drokin; Vitaly
> Fertman; Bruce Korb; Emoly Liu; lustre-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: ldlm: use designated initializers
>
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>
> _______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
