On 09/04/2018 09:59 AM, Kyeongdon Kim wrote:
>> > +#undef strncmp
>> > +int strncmp(const char *cs, const char *ct, size_t len)
>> > +{
>> > + check_memory_region((unsigned long)cs, len, false, _RET_IP_);
>> > + check_memory_region((unsigned long)ct, len, false, _RET_IP_);
>>
>> This will cause false positives. Both 'cs', and 'ct' could be less than len bytes.
>>
>> There is no need in these interceptors, just use the C implementations from lib/string.c
>> like you did in your first patch.
>> The only thing that was wrong in the first patch is that assembly implementations
>> were compiled out instead of being declared week.
>>
> Well, at first I thought so..
> I would remove diff code in /mm/kasan/kasan.c then use C implementations in lib/string.c
> w/ assem implementations as weak :
>
> diff --git a/lib/string.c b/lib/string.c
> index 2c0900a..a18b18f 100644
> --- a/lib/string.c
> +++ b/lib/string.c
> @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ size_t strlcat(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(strlcat);
> #endif
>
> -#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STRCMP
> +#if (defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_KASAN)) || !defined(__HAVE_ARCH_STRCMP)
No. What part of "like you did in your first patch" is unclear to you?
> /**
> * strcmp - Compare two strings
> * @cs: One string
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ int strcmp(const char *cs, const char *ct)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(strcmp);
> #endif
>
> -#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STRNCMP
> +#if (defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_KASAN)) || !defined(__HAVE_ARCH_STRNCMP)
> /**
> * strncmp - Compare two length-limited strings
>
> Can I get your opinion wrt this ?
>
> Thanks,
>
