From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224AEM/RsB1U3Uv2IwWkvnT2y2EC1vvMiKrIJO7G5qUwNnfaLQWV5wdZaqLeccjrNShtNLyS ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1518636788; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ri30ftUVJ5zxKmVLwgeUmf5F7yCjP+dcQlLsXFJuT/0dppc4Gxm0utiwuForzwEqQj wh8nHzHAiK3Iz7l1WNHPvagmiUfvZcCFEW6LnF9ECZnhNKZwqego3MWfLdpHxyGY1kP6 4wCRXszbJlBK5GQIP55ZDzaPfj3AY0KZ7PS0AEeBW9irONhHPx1mtwHb9m7Ztr+J0ozj LNcTVmlZeQx2PhXz67REVDGaS+DyU3It9qCaL2wQQHCSnXb/CVCnlKKg21/tluALzZ9L KZd832n2PndStW0OVHkPAeUX/Yfq30fIzkZw8BGJ6+F+d63fL6CUMLxFxA57ruYw7vjx l9Yg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :cc:to:from:subject:message-id:delivered-to:list-id:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:list-help:list-post:precedence:mailing-list :arc-authentication-results; bh=xGzbHzdfoxUKfArhC82al+ELMuX1PeQ5PuUZlhJc+FQ=; b=Oo6BWxfFmVAXn/74AAE3zEeMJdhrjjQZ16wCEb2Z6yfY4EXpg1o3jEY+Oj/uYxy5iF EAfrP23WO5NGFY6b3Byq15fk5hV9SNwvYy3whsVSpoEXV6Mzobuk4ySXJFhHsTF7fb4l txfOxAk7AdaWjfWQCTy9kT1pn5NnerWGNETOkMs0wh+5VK+6+hYMS2q/0nVE9mzOyvmm +ji//zUt96VZguQ/+KCL2Dhs4xxYKJPWqneiVUWCI5JSiuOABtFxsVBJ4mMP4651Ax0p 7B7B2l75In29vAQgmZ7P7vShotQQ5w1veR5n34rOuixGKniRF6yQnbicvaFrOKc9Wloz 6KrA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kernel-hardening-return-11763-gregkh=linuxfoundation.org@lists.openwall.com designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-11763-gregkh=linuxfoundation.org@lists.openwall.com Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kernel-hardening-return-11763-gregkh=linuxfoundation.org@lists.openwall.com designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-11763-gregkh=linuxfoundation.org@lists.openwall.com Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:4605:5007:6119:7576:7688:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:12760:12895:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:13439:14181:14659:14721:21080:21451:21611:21627:30034:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:47.151.150.235:@perches.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.0.100 64.201.201.201,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:22,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: shoes08_6f8de17626d53 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2110 Message-ID: <1518636765.3678.19.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add kvzalloc_struct to complement kvzalloc_array From: Joe Perches To: Kees Cook Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Linux-MM , LKML , Kernel Hardening Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:32:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20180214182618.14627-1-willy@infradead.org> <1518634058.3678.15.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1592401947833736714?= X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1592406088529673301?= X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 11:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:26 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > From: Matthew Wilcox > > > > > > 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. Function symmetry matters too. These allocation functions are specific to kvz and are not symmetric for k, v, devm_ _node, and the like.