On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:05:45PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 8:08 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > -/* Check that ksize() makes the whole object accessible. */
> > > +/* Check that ksize() does NOT unpoison whole object. */
> > > static void ksize_unpoisons_memory(struct kunit *test)
> > > {
> > > char *ptr;
> > > @@ -791,15 +791,17 @@ static void ksize_unpoisons_memory(struct kunit *test)
> > >
> > > ptr = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ptr);
> > > +
> > > real_size = ksize(ptr);
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, real_size, size);
> > >
> > > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(ptr);
> > >
> > > /* This access shouldn't trigger a KASAN report. */
> > > - ptr[size] = 'x';
> > > + ptr[size - 1] = 'x';
> > >
> > > /* This one must. */
> > > - KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL(test, ((volatile char *)ptr)[real_size]);
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL(test, ((volatile char *)ptr)[real_size - 1]);
> >
> > How about also accessing ptr[size] here? It would allow for a more
> > precise checking of the in-object redzone.
>
> Sure! Probably both ptr[size] and ptr[real_size -1], yes?
Yes, sounds good. Thank you!
