On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> We all know the perils of multiplying a value provided from userspace
>> by a constant and then allocating the resulting number of bytes. That's
>> why we have kvmalloc_array(), so we don't have to think about it.
>> This solves the same problem when we embed one of these arrays in a
>> struct like this:
>>
>> struct {
>> int n;
>> unsigned long array[];
>> };
>
> I think expanding the number of allocation functions
> is not necessary.
I think removing common mispatterns in favor of overflow-protected
allocation functions makes sense.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
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>
