Hi Kees,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 03:25:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
> >
> > Should be CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY to match the slab/slub implementation
> > condition.
> >
> >> +const char *__check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
> >> + struct page *page);
> >> +#else
> >> +static inline const char *__check_heap_object(const void *ptr,
> >> + unsigned long n,
> >> + struct page *page)
> >> +{
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
>
> Hmm, I think what I have is correct: if the allocator supports the
> heap object checking, it defines __check_heap_object as existing via
> CONFIG_HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR. If usercopy checking is done
> at all is controlled by CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY.
>
> I.e. you can have the other usercopy checks even if your allocator
> doesn't support object size checking.
Right. I missed the fact that usercopy.c build also depends on
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY. Sorry for the noise.
baruch
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>